Discussion:
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
(too old to reply)
a***@yahoo.com
2006-08-26 06:04:39 UTC
Permalink
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE

What is your purpose in life? What is the rationale behind our life?
Why do we live in this life? These questions frequently intrigue people
who try to find accurate answers.

People provide different answers to these questions. Some people
believe the purpose of life is to accumulate wealth. But one may
wonder: What is the purpose of life after one has collected colossal
amounts of money? What then? What will the purpose be once money is
gathered? If the purpose of life is to gain money, there will be no
purpose after becoming wealthy. And in fact, here lies the problem of
some disbelievers or misbelievers at some stage of their life, when
collecting money is the target of their life. When they have collected
the money they dreamt of, their life loses its purpose. They suffer
from the panic of nothingness and they live in tension and
restlessness.

Can Wealth Be an Aim?

We often hear of a millionaire committing suicide, sometimes, not the
millionaire himself but his wife, son, or daughter. The question that
poses itself is: Can wealth bring happiness to one's life? In most
cases the answer is NO. Is the purpose of collecting wealth a standing
purpose? As we know, the five-year old child does not look for wealth:
a toy for him is equal to a million dollars. The eighteen-year old
adolescent does not dream of wealth because he is busy with more
important things. The ninety-year old man does not care about money; he
is worried more about his health. This proves that wealth cannot be a
standing purpose in all the stages of the individual's life.

Wealth can do little to bring happiness to a disbeliever, because
he/she is not sure about his fate. A disbeliever does not know the
purpose of life. And if he has a purpose, this purpose is doomed to be
temporary or self destructive.

What is the use of wealth to a disbeliever if he feels scared of the
end and skeptical of everything. A disbeliever may gain a lot of money,
but will surely lose himself.

Worshipping Allah as an Aim

On the contrary, faith in Allah gives the believer the purpose of life
that he needs. In Islam, the purpose of life is to worship Allah. The
term "Worship" covers all acts of obedience to Allah.

The Islamic purpose of life is a standing purpose. The true Muslim
sticks to this purpose throughout all the stages of his life, whether
he is a child, adolescent, adult, or an old man.

Worshipping Allah makes life purposeful and meaningful, especially
within the framework of Islam. According to Islam this worldly life is
just a short stage of our life. Then there is the other life. The
boundary between the first and second life is the death stage, which is
a transitory stage to the second life. The type of life in the second
stage a person deserves depends on his deeds in the first life. At the
end of the death stage comes the day of judgment. On this day, Allah
rewards or punishes people according to their deeds in the first life.

The First Life as an Examination

So, Islam looks at the first life as an examination of man. The death
stage is similar to a rest period after the test, i. e. after the first
life. The Day of Judgment is similar to the day of announcing the
results of the examinees. The second life is the time when each
examinee enjoys or suffers from the outcome of his behavior during the
test period.

In Islam, the line of life is clear, simple, and logical: the first
life, death, the Day of Judgment, and then the second life. With this
clear line of life, the Muslim has a clear purpose in life. The Muslim
knows he is created by Allah. Muslims know they are going to spend some
years in this first life, during which they have to obey God, because
God will question them and hold them responsible for their public or
private deeds, because Allah knows about all the deeds of all people.
The Muslim knows that his deeds in the first life will determine the
type of second life they will live in. The Muslim knows that this first
life is a very short one, one hundred years, more or less, whereas the
second life is an eternal one.

The Eternity of the Second Life

The concept of the eternity of the second life has a tremendous effect
on a Muslims during their first life, because Muslims believe that
their first life determines the shape of their second life. In
addition, this determines the shape of their second life and this
determination will be through the Judgment of Allah, the All just and
Almighty.

With this belief in the second life and the Day of Judgment, the
Muslim's life becomes purposeful and meaningful. Moreover, the Muslim's
standing purpose is to go to Paradise in the second life.

In other words, the Muslim's permanent purpose is to obey Allah, to
submit to Allah, to carry out His orders, and to keep in continues
contact with Him through prayers (five times a day), through fasting
(one month a year), through charity (as often as possible), and through
pilgrimage (once in one's life).

The Need for a Permanent Purpose

Disbelievers have purposes in their lives such as collecting money and
property, indulging in sex, eating, and dancing. But all these purposes
are transient and passing ones. All these purposes come and go, go up
and down. Money comes and goes. Health comes and goes. Sexual
activities cannot continue forever. All these lusts for money, food and
sex cannot answer the individual's questions: so what? Then What?

However, Islam saves Muslims from the trouble of asking the question,
because Islam makes it clear, from the very beginning, that the
permanent purpose of the Muslim in this life is to obey Allah in order
to go to Paradise in the second life.

We should know that the only way for our salvation in this life and in
the hereafter is to know our Lord who created us, believe in Him, and
worship Him alone.

We should also know our Prophet whom Allah had sent to all mankind,
believe in Him and follow Him. We should, know the religion of truth
which our Lord has commanded us to believe in, and practice it ...

Those in search of truth

Who have an open mind and heart,

Islamic Education Foundation

Welcome You.

Objectives: -

To Convey the message of Islam

To Educate Muslims about Islam

To keep in close contact with new Muslims.

Activities:

Offering Courses and presenting lectures about Islam in several
languages.

Teaching Islam and Arabic.

Teaching new Muslims to receive the Holy Quran.

Helping Non- Muslims embrace Islam and complete the required procedures
Erik Vastmasd
2006-08-26 06:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
What is your purpose in life? What is the rationale behind our life?
Why do we live in this life? These questions frequently intrigue people
who try to find accurate answers.
People provide different answers to these questions. Some people
believe the purpose of life is to accumulate wealth. But one may
wonder: What is the purpose of life after one has collected colossal
amounts of money? What then? What will the purpose be once money is
gathered? If the purpose of life is to gain money, there will be no
purpose after becoming wealthy. And in fact, here lies the problem of
some disbelievers or misbelievers at some stage of their life, when
collecting money is the target of their life. When they have collected
the money they dreamt of, their life loses its purpose. They suffer
from the panic of nothingness and they live in tension and
restlessness.
Can Wealth Be an Aim?
We often hear of a millionaire committing suicide, sometimes, not the
millionaire himself but his wife, son, or daughter. The question that
poses itself is: Can wealth bring happiness to one's life? In most
cases the answer is NO. Is the purpose of collecting wealth a standing
a toy for him is equal to a million dollars. The eighteen-year old
adolescent does not dream of wealth because he is busy with more
important things. The ninety-year old man does not care about money; he
is worried more about his health. This proves that wealth cannot be a
standing purpose in all the stages of the individual's life.
Wealth can do little to bring happiness to a disbeliever, because
he/she is not sure about his fate. A disbeliever does not know the
purpose of life. And if he has a purpose, this purpose is doomed to be
temporary or self destructive.
What is the use of wealth to a disbeliever if he feels scared of the
end and skeptical of everything. A disbeliever may gain a lot of money,
but will surely lose himself.
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
On the contrary, faith in Allah gives the believer the purpose of life
that he needs. In Islam, the purpose of life is to worship Allah. The
term "Worship" covers all acts of obedience to Allah.
The Islamic purpose of life is a standing purpose. The true Muslim
sticks to this purpose throughout all the stages of his life, whether
he is a child, adolescent, adult, or an old man.
Worshipping Allah makes life purposeful and meaningful, especially
within the framework of Islam. According to Islam this worldly life is
just a short stage of our life. Then there is the other life. The
boundary between the first and second life is the death stage, which is
a transitory stage to the second life. The type of life in the second
stage a person deserves depends on his deeds in the first life. At the
end of the death stage comes the day of judgment. On this day, Allah
rewards or punishes people according to their deeds in the first life.
The First Life as an Examination
So, Islam looks at the first life as an examination of man. The death
stage is similar to a rest period after the test, i. e. after the first
life. The Day of Judgment is similar to the day of announcing the
results of the examinees. The second life is the time when each
examinee enjoys or suffers from the outcome of his behavior during the
test period.
In Islam, the line of life is clear, simple, and logical: the first
life, death, the Day of Judgment, and then the second life. With this
clear line of life, the Muslim has a clear purpose in life. The Muslim
knows he is created by Allah. Muslims know they are going to spend some
years in this first life, during which they have to obey God, because
God will question them and hold them responsible for their public or
private deeds, because Allah knows about all the deeds of all people.
The Muslim knows that his deeds in the first life will determine the
type of second life they will live in. The Muslim knows that this first
life is a very short one, one hundred years, more or less, whereas the
second life is an eternal one.
The Eternity of the Second Life
The concept of the eternity of the second life has a tremendous effect
on a Muslims during their first life, because Muslims believe that
their first life determines the shape of their second life. In
addition, this determines the shape of their second life and this
determination will be through the Judgment of Allah, the All just and
Almighty.
With this belief in the second life and the Day of Judgment, the
Muslim's life becomes purposeful and meaningful. Moreover, the Muslim's
standing purpose is to go to Paradise in the second life.
In other words, the Muslim's permanent purpose is to obey Allah, to
submit to Allah, to carry out His orders, and to keep in continues
contact with Him through prayers (five times a day), through fasting
(one month a year), through charity (as often as possible), and through
pilgrimage (once in one's life).
The Need for a Permanent Purpose
Disbelievers have purposes in their lives such as collecting money and
property, indulging in sex, eating, and dancing. But all these purposes
are transient and passing ones. All these purposes come and go, go up
and down. Money comes and goes. Health comes and goes. Sexual
activities cannot continue forever. All these lusts for money, food and
sex cannot answer the individual's questions: so what? Then What?
However, Islam saves Muslims from the trouble of asking the question,
because Islam makes it clear, from the very beginning, that the
permanent purpose of the Muslim in this life is to obey Allah in order
to go to Paradise in the second life.
We should know that the only way for our salvation in this life and in
the hereafter is to know our Lord who created us, believe in Him, and
worship Him alone.
We should also know our Prophet whom Allah had sent to all mankind,
believe in Him and follow Him. We should, know the religion of truth
which our Lord has commanded us to believe in, and practice it ...
Those in search of truth
Who have an open mind and heart,
Islamic Education Foundation
Welcome You.
Objectives: -
To Convey the message of Islam
To Educate Muslims about Islam
To keep in close contact with new Muslims.
Offering Courses and presenting lectures about Islam in several
languages.
Teaching Islam and Arabic.
Teaching new Muslims to receive the Holy Quran.
Helping Non- Muslims embrace Islam and complete the required procedures
I accumulated valuable experience manufacturing explosives when I was
employed as an operator in a Government Explosive factory, until
unfortunately the factory blew up while I was on my rostered day off.

I'm a great believer in supporting others which is why I support our
local vineyards by partaking in a glass of red.

So I could be interested as long as I'm not expected to wear a tea
towel over my head or forced to use Agent 4 against my will.
--
Erik Vastmasd

[Remove undies and add .au before replying by email]
Paul Hantom
2006-08-26 08:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
What is your purpose in life?
To beget life. That is all life forms have in common.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
What is the rationale behind our life?
Why do we live in this life? These questions frequently intrigue people
who try to find accurate answers.
People provide different answers to these questions. Some people
believe the purpose of life is to accumulate wealth. But one may
wonder: What is the purpose of life after one has collected colossal
amounts of money? What then? What will the purpose be once money is
gathered? If the purpose of life is to gain money, there will be no
purpose after becoming wealthy. And in fact, here lies the problem of
some disbelievers or misbelievers at some stage of their life, when
collecting money is the target of their life. When they have collected
the money they dreamt of, their life loses its purpose. They suffer
from the panic of nothingness and they live in tension and
restlessness.
Can Wealth Be an Aim?
We often hear of a millionaire committing suicide, sometimes, not the
millionaire himself but his wife, son, or daughter. The question that
poses itself is: Can wealth bring happiness to one's life? In most
cases the answer is NO. Is the purpose of collecting wealth a standing
a toy for him is equal to a million dollars. The eighteen-year old
adolescent does not dream of wealth because he is busy with more
important things. The ninety-year old man does not care about money; he
is worried more about his health. This proves that wealth cannot be a
standing purpose in all the stages of the individual's life.
Wealth can do little to bring happiness to a disbeliever, because
he/she is not sure about his fate. A disbeliever does not know the
purpose of life. And if he has a purpose, this purpose is doomed to be
temporary or self destructive.
What is the use of wealth to a disbeliever if he feels scared of the
end and skeptical of everything. A disbeliever may gain a lot of money,
but will surely lose himself.
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
As good as aim, and as silly as aim, as worshiping anything else. You are a
fluke of the universe.
NotX
2006-08-26 13:24:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:01:39 -0700, Paul Hantom
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
What is your purpose in life?
[snip]
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
As good as aim, and as silly as aim, as worshiping anything else. You are a
fluke of the universe.
A "purpose in life" is complete nonsense, unless you have decided on a
purpose for your own life. It assumes you are a slave to some
controlling force. The existence of such a force is totally lacking in
evidence.
--
"The government of the United States not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-- GEORGE WASHINGTON--Treaty of Tripoli 1796
Vrodok the Piglet lover
2006-08-26 11:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Once Upon A Time (on or around 25 Aug 2006 23:04:39 -0700), in
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
[slice]

11 September, 2001.
hardriverror
2006-08-26 14:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Do suicide bombers have some sort of aiming device?
Sam E
2006-08-26 16:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Do suicide bombers have some sort of aiming device?
Yes. That's why they're suicide bombers. They put the bomb in EXACTLY
the right place.
None
2006-08-26 21:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Do suicide bombers have some sort of aiming device?
Yes, women and children.....
Anthony V. Vitale
2006-08-26 15:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
<snip>

This is absolutely not the correct forum for this.
--
Anthony
Jim Higgins
2006-08-26 15:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
What is your purpose in life? What is the rationale behind our life?
Why do we live in this life? These questions frequently intrigue people
who try to find accurate answers.
People provide different answers to these questions. Some people
believe the purpose of life is to accumulate wealth. But one may
wonder: What is the purpose of life after one has collected colossal
amounts of money? What then? What will the purpose be once money is
gathered? If the purpose of life is to gain money, there will be no
purpose after becoming wealthy. And in fact, here lies the problem of
some disbelievers or misbelievers at some stage of their life, when
collecting money is the target of their life. When they have collected
the money they dreamt of, their life loses its purpose. They suffer
from the panic of nothingness and they live in tension and
restlessness.
Can Wealth Be an Aim?
We often hear of a millionaire committing suicide, sometimes, not the
millionaire himself but his wife, son, or daughter. The question that
poses itself is: Can wealth bring happiness to one's life? In most
cases the answer is NO. Is the purpose of collecting wealth a standing
a toy for him is equal to a million dollars. The eighteen-year old
adolescent does not dream of wealth because he is busy with more
important things. The ninety-year old man does not care about money; he
is worried more about his health. This proves that wealth cannot be a
standing purpose in all the stages of the individual's life.
Wealth can do little to bring happiness to a disbeliever, because
he/she is not sure about his fate. A disbeliever does not know the
purpose of life. And if he has a purpose, this purpose is doomed to be
temporary or self destructive.
What is the use of wealth to a disbeliever if he feels scared of the
end and skeptical of everything. A disbeliever may gain a lot of money,
but will surely lose himself.
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
On the contrary, faith in Allah gives the believer the purpose of life
that he needs. In Islam, the purpose of life is to worship Allah. The
term "Worship" covers all acts of obedience to Allah.
The Islamic purpose of life is a standing purpose. The true Muslim
sticks to this purpose throughout all the stages of his life, whether
he is a child, adolescent, adult, or an old man.
Worshipping Allah makes life purposeful and meaningful, especially
within the framework of Islam. According to Islam this worldly life is
just a short stage of our life. Then there is the other life. The
boundary between the first and second life is the death stage, which is
a transitory stage to the second life. The type of life in the second
stage a person deserves depends on his deeds in the first life. At the
end of the death stage comes the day of judgment. On this day, Allah
rewards or punishes people according to their deeds in the first life.
The First Life as an Examination
So, Islam looks at the first life as an examination of man. The death
stage is similar to a rest period after the test, i. e. after the first
life. The Day of Judgment is similar to the day of announcing the
results of the examinees. The second life is the time when each
examinee enjoys or suffers from the outcome of his behavior during the
test period.
In Islam, the line of life is clear, simple, and logical: the first
life, death, the Day of Judgment, and then the second life. With this
clear line of life, the Muslim has a clear purpose in life. The Muslim
knows he is created by Allah. Muslims know they are going to spend some
years in this first life, during which they have to obey God, because
God will question them and hold them responsible for their public or
private deeds, because Allah knows about all the deeds of all people.
The Muslim knows that his deeds in the first life will determine the
type of second life they will live in. The Muslim knows that this first
life is a very short one, one hundred years, more or less, whereas the
second life is an eternal one.
The Eternity of the Second Life
The concept of the eternity of the second life has a tremendous effect
on a Muslims during their first life, because Muslims believe that
their first life determines the shape of their second life. In
addition, this determines the shape of their second life and this
determination will be through the Judgment of Allah, the All just and
Almighty.
With this belief in the second life and the Day of Judgment, the
Muslim's life becomes purposeful and meaningful. Moreover, the Muslim's
standing purpose is to go to Paradise in the second life.
In other words, the Muslim's permanent purpose is to obey Allah, to
submit to Allah, to carry out His orders, and to keep in continues
contact with Him through prayers (five times a day), through fasting
(one month a year), through charity (as often as possible), and through
pilgrimage (once in one's life).
The Need for a Permanent Purpose
Disbelievers have purposes in their lives such as collecting money and
property, indulging in sex, eating, and dancing. But all these purposes
are transient and passing ones. All these purposes come and go, go up
and down. Money comes and goes. Health comes and goes. Sexual
activities cannot continue forever. All these lusts for money, food and
sex cannot answer the individual's questions: so what? Then What?
However, Islam saves Muslims from the trouble of asking the question,
because Islam makes it clear, from the very beginning, that the
permanent purpose of the Muslim in this life is to obey Allah in order
to go to Paradise in the second life.
We should know that the only way for our salvation in this life and in
the hereafter is to know our Lord who created us, believe in Him, and
worship Him alone.
We should also know our Prophet whom Allah had sent to all mankind,
believe in Him and follow Him. We should, know the religion of truth
which our Lord has commanded us to believe in, and practice it ...
Those in search of truth
Who have an open mind and heart,
Islamic Education Foundation
Welcome You.
Objectives: -
To Convey the message of Islam
To Educate Muslims about Islam
To keep in close contact with new Muslims.
Offering Courses and presenting lectures about Islam in several
languages.
Teaching Islam and Arabic.
Teaching new Muslims to receive the Holy Quran.
Helping Non- Muslims embrace Islam and complete the required procedures
Let's get right down to it. Allah's purpose as conveyed to the world
thru his Prophet Muhammad is to spread Islam by converting the
nonbeliever or killing him. It is a religion of violence and hatred,
not the religion of peace some portray it to be. Those pushing the
"religion of peace" agenda are those who support the Neville
Chamberlain approach to Islamo-Fascism. That approach is simply seen
as weakness.
Vrodok the Piglet lover
2006-08-26 19:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Once Upon A Time (on or around Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:31:30 GMT), in
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Jim Higgins
[snip]
Post by Jim Higgins
Let's get right down to it.
[snip]


"'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never
have snipped at all."

You, Mr. Higgins, might wish to practice "safe snip". There was _no_
need, for your purpose(s), to quote the entirety of the OP's msg.
evadnikufesin
2006-08-26 21:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Let's get right down to it. Allah's purpose as conveyed to the world
thru his Prophet Muhammad is to spread Islam by converting the
nonbeliever or killing him. It is a religion of violence and hatred,
not the religion of peace some portray it to be. Those pushing the
"religion of peace" agenda are those who support the Neville
Chamberlain approach to Islamo-Fascism. That approach is simply seen
as weakness.
Preach on!
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
evadnikufesin
2006-08-26 21:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
Fuck islammofacism. May your 72 virgins all have festering sores in hell.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 01:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
Fuck islammofacism. May your 72 virgins all have festering sores in hell.
Spoken like the intellectual you aren't.

Do you think all 1.5 billion Muslims are Islamofascists?
Post by evadnikufesin
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
And neoconservatism is a mental illness.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
evadnikufesin
2006-08-27 02:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
Fuck islammofacism. May your 72 virgins all have festering sores in hell.
Spoken like the intellectual you aren't.
You post to newsgroups about Forte Agent - just how swift are you?
Post by Ed Jay
Do you think all 1.5 billion Muslims are Islamofascists?
All? No.. most? Yes.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by evadnikufesin
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
And neoconservatism is a mental illness.
A disorder is a type of illness, fartwit. Tried to put me down but the
best you could do was say there was no difference. Whatever. And I'm not
a "neocon". But it'd be better than being a socialist sheeple waiting for
the slaughter at the hands of islammofacism.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 03:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
Fuck islammofacism. May your 72 virgins all have festering sores in hell.
Spoken like the intellectual you aren't.
You post to newsgroups about Forte Agent - just how swift are you?
Post by Ed Jay
Do you think all 1.5 billion Muslims are Islamofascists?
All? No.. most? Yes.
I don't think you're correct, but we'll never know. If you think they are,
then it's all the more important that you change your attitude toward
them.
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Post by evadnikufesin
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
And neoconservatism is a mental illness.
A disorder is a type of illness, fartwit.
No, asshole, a disorder is not necessarily an illness.
Post by evadnikufesin
Tried to put me down but the
best you could do was say there was no difference. Whatever.
I didn't have to put you down. You did a fine job of that all by yourself
with your response to the OP.
Post by evadnikufesin
And I'm not a "neocon".
High fives!
Post by evadnikufesin
But it'd be better than being a socialist sheeple waiting for
the slaughter at the hands of islammofacism.
Nobody I've heard of is sitting idle awaiting slaughter. That's a bullshit
fabrication...a strawman to justify your commitment to your thinking. The
Liberal Democrats I know, along with many conservative Republicans,
disagree with the manner in which international relations are being
handled. Many think it's more important to cement high-quality, friendly
relationships with our current adversaries than to give them more reasons
to despise us.

Think about something...please...

Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
the Islamic Jihad will become the ruling faction throughout the Muslim
world. That would include all of the oil producer nations. I'm sure this
is an easy scenario for you to embrace, since you've already said you
believe most Muslims are Islamofascists. All they'll need to exterminate
their enemies is the weaponry.

Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
China will need/want all of the oil coming from the Muslim world. China
sells the weapons the Islamic Jihad is going to want. They don't even need
cash...they can trade weapons for oil.

There are 300 million US citizens. There are 3.5 billion Chinese. There
are 1.5 billion Muslims. Majority rules! Snuff!

The Muslims control the oil. China is our biggest creditor, because we
borrowed from it to pay for the war on Iraq. China owns serious assets
within the US. The Port of Los Angeles is owned by China. With the flick
of the spigot and a switch, we will be screwed.

Do you seriously believe that treating these people as our enemy the way
we are is the best approach to guaranteeing our future security? Or, do
you think that doing our best to reconcile our differences by using a
different diplomatic route than we're on is more appropriate?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Al Superczynski
2006-08-27 04:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
The Port of Los Angeles is owned by China.
BS, just like most of your rant.

<http://www.portoflosangeles.org/factsfigures_Portataglance.htm>

"The Port of Los Angeles is a proprietary, self-supporting department
of the City of Los Angeles, California. The Port is under the control
of a five-member Board of Harbor Commissioners appointed by the Mayor
and approved by the City Council and is administered by an executive
director. "
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 05:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
The Port of Los Angeles is owned by China.
BS, just like most of your rant.
I stand corrected. I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which
comprises the vast majority of the Port.
Post by Al Superczynski
"The Port of Los Angeles is a proprietary, self-supporting department
of the City of Los Angeles, California....
My rant?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Al Superczynski
2006-08-27 05:38:01 UTC
Permalink
I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard...
Wrong again. That was closed in FY 1997.

<http://www.fas.org/man/company/shipyard/long_beach.htm>
My rant?
Yes, your rant.
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 05:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Superczynski
I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard...
Wrong again. That was closed in FY 1997
You lose this round. When the Navy closed it, it was sold or leased to the
Chinese. The Chinese effectively control the Port of LA. It can shut down
the port in a flash.
Post by Al Superczynski
<http://www.fas.org/man/company/shipyard/long_beach.htm>
My rant?
Yes, your rant.
Yeah, I'm tired of a certain mind set.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Al Superczynski
2006-08-27 05:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Al Superczynski
I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard...
Wrong again. That was closed in FY 1997
You lose this round. When the Navy closed it, it was sold or leased to the
Chinese.
Last paragraph...

<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/long_beach.htm>
Post by Ed Jay
The Chinese effectively control the Port of LA. It can shut down
the port in a flash.
Cite?
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 06:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Al Superczynski
I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard...
Wrong again. That was closed in FY 1997
You lose this round. When the Navy closed it, it was sold or leased to the
Chinese.
Last paragraph...
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/long_beach.htm>
Old news.
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
The Chinese effectively control the Port of LA. It can shut down
the port in a flash.
Cite?
If nothing else, they could block its access. I live immediately adjacent
to the port. The vast majority of traffic is Chinese ships.

Anyway, nice deflection.

You think the foreseeable-future possibility of China wanting oil and
Muslim nutjobs in charge wanting Chinese weapons is far fetched?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Al Superczynski
2006-08-27 07:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Ed Jay
The Chinese effectively control the Port of LA. It can shut down
the port in a flash.
Cite?
If nothing else, they could block its access. I live immediately adjacent
to the port. The vast majority of traffic is Chinese ships.
No, I mean an authoritative cite to back up your allegation. A
majority of traffic being Chinese ships isn't surprising at all but
that doesn't equate to either Chinese ownership or control of the
port.
Post by Ed Jay
Anyway, nice deflection.
Who's deflecting? I'm asking you for _facts_ , not your opinion.
Post by Ed Jay
You think the foreseeable-future possibility of China wanting oil and
Muslim nutjobs in charge wanting Chinese weapons is far fetched?
Not at all. That's already going on.
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Marc Wilson
2006-08-30 12:04:09 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Al Superczynski) wrote in
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Ed Jay
The Chinese effectively control the Port of LA. It can shut down
the port in a flash.
Cite?
If nothing else, they could block its access. I live immediately adjacent
to the port. The vast majority of traffic is Chinese ships.
No, I mean an authoritative cite to back up your allegation. A
majority of traffic being Chinese ships isn't surprising at all but
that doesn't equate to either Chinese ownership or control of the
port.
Quite- most of the cars on the roads here are Japanese, but it doesn't mean
Japan can shut down the system (no need, the Department of Transport can
fuck it up well enough without help).
--
Marc

senior nos adepto , melior nos erant
Erik Vastmasd
2006-08-27 09:27:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:29:19 -0700, Ed Jay plucked a feather from
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.0/32.1071
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Al Superczynski
I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard...
Wrong again. That was closed in FY 1997
You lose this round. When the Navy closed it, it was sold or leased to the
Chinese.
Last paragraph...
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/long_beach.htm>
Old news.
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
The Chinese effectively control the Port of LA. It can shut down
the port in a flash.
Cite?
If nothing else, they could block its access. I live immediately adjacent
to the port. The vast majority of traffic is Chinese ships.
Anyway, nice deflection.
You think the foreseeable-future possibility of China wanting oil and
Muslim nutjobs in charge wanting Chinese weapons is far fetched?
Although we don't seem to be talking about Agent 4

We're lucky to have such a World Wild Authority and Forte Agent expert
in ou midst.

So much for your earlier retort that someone else wasn't using Agent.
--
Erik Vastmasd

[Remove undies and add .au before replying by email]
Erik Vastmasd
2006-08-27 09:14:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:16:32 -0700, Ed Jay plucked a feather from
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Al Superczynski
Post by Ed Jay
The Port of Los Angeles is owned by China.
BS, just like most of your rant.
I stand corrected. I should have said the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which
comprises the vast majority of the Port.
Post by Al Superczynski
"The Port of Los Angeles is a proprietary, self-supporting department
of the City of Los Angeles, California....
My rant?
I find it was consistent with your earlier postings.
--
Erik Vastmasd

[Remove undies and add .au before replying by email]
evadnikufesin
2006-08-27 06:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
I don't think you're correct, but we'll never know. If you think they are,
then it's all the more important that you change your attitude toward
them.
Oh to HELL with THAT. Death before I submit to that scum. If we had
listened to nonsense like that in the 30's and 40's we'd all have swastikas
flying over our homes.

You wanna roll over? Go for it. That's a liberal for ya I suppose.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Al Superczynski
2006-08-27 07:00:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:22:13 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Death before I submit to that scum.
Amen. I'd rather die fighting them than live in chains.

And before someone jumps up and calls me a 'chickenhawk', I'm a
retired Army Master Sergeant.
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Erik Vastmasd
2006-08-27 09:34:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:22:13 -0700, evadnikufesin plucked a feather
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
I don't think you're correct, but we'll never know. If you think they are,
then it's all the more important that you change your attitude toward
them.
Oh to HELL with THAT. Death before I submit to that scum. If we had
listened to nonsense like that in the 30's and 40's we'd all have swastikas
flying over our homes.
You wanna roll over? Go for it. That's a liberal for ya I suppose.
People did listen and unfortunately learned and died so how about
listening about Agent in a newsreader newsgroup.
--
Erik Vastmasd

[Remove undies and add .au before replying by email]
Vrodok the Piglet lover
2006-08-27 11:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Once Upon A Time (on or around Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:34:28 +1000), in
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Erik Vastmasd
<***@yahoo.undies.com.invalid>, by way of Message-iD
<***@eudora.org>, wrote:

[snip]

As my fairly-recent European-ancestors were fond of saying, "Enough
aready!!!".

This thread is hereby PLONKed. Yes, I won't see my own last post. Who
cares.
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 14:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
I don't think you're correct, but we'll never know. If you think they are,
then it's all the more important that you change your attitude toward
them.
Oh to HELL with THAT. Death before I submit to that scum. If we had
listened to nonsense like that in the 30's and 40's we'd all have swastikas
flying over our homes.
You wanna roll over? Go for it. That's a liberal for ya I suppose.
Nobody suggested rolling over or submission. It's really too bad some
people can only think in black and white.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
evadnikufesin
2006-08-27 14:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Nobody suggested rolling over or submission. It's really too bad some
people can only think in black and white.
That's all Islammofacists see in. Convert you or kill you. If you think
otherwise - you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 16:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Nobody suggested rolling over or submission. It's really too bad some
people can only think in black and white.
That's all Islammofacists see in.
I agree. Too bad many of our own citizens believe the same black/white
nonsense. "You're either with us, or you're against us." Such bullshit
thinking.
Post by evadnikufesin
Convert you or kill you. If you think
otherwise - you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive.
I don't think otherwise. I simply don't believe, as you do, that 'most' of
the Islamic world are Islamofascists. If that were true, we'd be dirt. I
think that only a small percentage of the world's Muslims are radical
'thinkers.' Given that there are some 1.5 billion Muslims, that small
percentage might still be measured in the millions, but that's still not
'most' of the population.

I believe that appealing to the Islamic religious leaders and Islamic
population-at-large through peaceful, i.e., diplomatic means, is far more
appropriate than the path the US has elected to take. I am absolutely
convinced that trying to push our form of democracy and individual
freedoms down their throat at the end of a gun barrel the way the
Neoconservatives believe is the opposite of what we should be doing.

We are constantly told that Muslims hate us "because of our freedom."
That's only partially correct. The Muslim radicals hate us because they
believe that our individual freedom has resulted in a decay of morality,
and the "new" morality flies in the face of what they were taught. Our
behavior is against their [most fervent] religious beliefs. They believe
that the only way to resolve the problem is to wipe us off the planet.

So, the Muslims radicals hate us because our individual freedoms have cast
us as infidels, but at the same time the Neoconservatives, who happen to
control our government, seek to push those same individual freedoms on the
Muslims. I see a dichotomy of ideals, do you?

You opine that those of us who believe a different approach than that
embraced by Bushco are lying down in submission waiting to be slaughtered?
That's as black/white thinking as the Islamofascists, and just as
ignorant. I don't think you're naive to think the way you do. I think you
must be incredibly stupid to believe that we're going to change the
spiritual thinking of a population five-times larger than ours to think
the way we do, especially at the end of a gun. Hasn't 9/11, Iraq, etc.,
etc., taught you anything?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
evadnikufesin
2006-08-27 18:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Hasn't 9/11, Iraq, etc.,
etc., taught you anything?
That they are hellbent more than ever to "convert us or kill us". Do you
realize that even in the UAE -what some consider the most 'liberal' areas
of the muslim world- that trying to recruit muslims or convert them to
christianity is punishable by death (or at least deportation from the UAE)?
That all of the arab worlds constitutions have no separation of church and
state?

Doesn't really smack of understanding to me. But hey.. you go ahead and
work on fighting a 'kinder, gentler' war or whatever the nonsense is that
the left is spewing these days.

Yea.. But *I'm* the idiot.. riiiight. At least in this country we have the
freedom that allows people like you to be morons. You should be grateful
for that. Even if it makes more work for the people who are fighting for
you to continue to have the right to wallow in ignorance.

Now don't get me wrong - I have nothing, per se, against Islam. People
should worship whatever they want. Even if it means the world turns out a
few Tom Cruises. But "convert or kill" I take issue with. And if, as you
naively think, that Islammofacists are the minority - why doesn't this
fabled majority do something to shut them up? I can tell you why. Because
they're *not* the majority.

I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Ed Jay
2006-08-27 21:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Hasn't 9/11, Iraq, etc.,
etc., taught you anything?
That they are hellbent more than ever to "convert us or kill us". Do you
realize that even in the UAE -what some consider the most 'liberal' areas
of the muslim world- that trying to recruit muslims or convert them to
christianity is punishable by death (or at least deportation from the UAE)?
That all of the arab worlds constitutions have no separation of church and
state?
They're all theocracies, to be sure. They're also sovereign nations whose
indigenous population have been practicing their ways for a long time.
That we don't care for their religious beliefs and laws based on those
beliefs is too damned bad. Who are we, but a young, wealthy, immoral
country trying to use our military might to force them to accept our way?
They are what they were a long time before the USA was discovered. Who are
we to tell them to follow our way? Wouldn't you be pissed off if the shoe
was on the other foot?
Post by evadnikufesin
Doesn't really smack of understanding to me. But hey.. you go ahead and
work on fighting a 'kinder, gentler' war or whatever the nonsense is that
the left is spewing these days.
It's a hell of a lot better than 'staying the course,' whatever that's
supposed to mean. If I was as black/white oriented as you, I'd be
suggesting that since we have idiots running the ship, you must be an
idiot to disagree with me. :-)
Post by evadnikufesin
Yea.. But *I'm* the idiot.. riiiight. At least in this country we have the
freedom that allows people like you to be morons. You should be grateful
for that. Even if it makes more work for the people who are fighting for
you to continue to have the right to wallow in ignorance.
Who, pray tell, do you think is currently fighting for my freedom?
Post by evadnikufesin
Now don't get me wrong - I have nothing, per se, against Islam. People
should worship whatever they want. Even if it means the world turns out a
few Tom Cruises. But "convert or kill" I take issue with. And if, as you
naively think, that Islammofacists are the minority - why doesn't this
fabled majority do something to shut them up? I can tell you why. Because
they're *not* the majority.
Please don't forget that it's only your opinion that my view is naive. At
the same time, I challenge you to cite factual evidence that the majority
of Muslims are Islamofascists.
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
I certainly agree with you that Hwd has had a huge impact on our
collective behavior. Then again, so have the evangelical fundamentalist
Christians.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
jo
2006-08-27 23:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
evadnikufesin
2006-08-28 03:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by jo
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
:P

Go back to watching Bareback Mountin'.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
xModem
2006-08-28 11:44:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:56 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by jo
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
:P
Go back to watching Bareback Mountin'.
Congratulations. You can add homophobe to your resume.
evadnikufesin
2006-08-29 03:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:56 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by jo
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
:P
Go back to watching Bareback Mountin'.
Congratulations. You can add homophobe to your resume.
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.

Second.. if you can't poke fun at something that sounds like a southpark
joke, what *can* you poke fun at...??
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
xModem
2006-08-29 11:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:56:26 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:56 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by jo
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
:P
Go back to watching Bareback Mountin'.
Congratulations. You can add homophobe to your resume.
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia:
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.

And before you pull out the "Yeah, well, you must be gay" response, my wife
will attest to my 30 years of unwavering heterosexuality.
Post by evadnikufesin
Second.. if you can't poke fun at something that sounds like a southpark
joke, what *can* you poke fun at...??
Bigots such as yourself?
hardriverror
2006-08-29 15:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Ed Jay
2006-08-29 16:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Excuse me, but character assassinating someone because they don't agree
with you is a Republican...read neoconservative trait.
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
Is the sky brown in your world?
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Fags? How telling of your bigoted mind.
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
I have excellent news for you. Your proctologist called and said he found
your head.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Anthony V. Vitale
2006-08-29 17:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Excuse me, but character assassinating someone because they don't agree
with you is a Republican...read neoconservative trait.
Well, Democrats seem to have also mastered this skill....
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
Is the sky brown in your world?
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Fags? How telling of your bigoted mind.
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
I have excellent news for you. Your proctologist called and said he found
your head.
--
Anthony
hardriverror
2006-08-29 17:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Excuse me, but character assassinating someone because they don't agree
with you is a Republican...read neoconservative trait.
Sorry, but Liberals invented that tactic...neoconservatives included
since there's no difference. It comes from being wrong all the
time...it's your only way out.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
Is the sky brown in your world?
No, the sky's always been blue here...maybe someone told you blue is
now brown and you believed them.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Fags? How telling of your bigoted mind.
If that word hurts your feelings, that's too bad. I've been called
worse but I didn't run to the ACLU.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
I have excellent news for you. Your proctologist called and said he found
your head.
Ha ha ha...did you come up with that all by yourself or did you use
your liberal defensive handbook?
evadnikufesin
2006-08-30 01:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Excuse me, but character assassinating someone because they don't agree
with you is a Republican...read neoconservative trait.
You're delusional. When I went to Sonoma State University (one of the most
liberal-biased campuses in the CSU system) I read one of the papers there
where a student attacked then President Reagan for "Talking out both sides
of his mouth, only he forgot his script."

You want more examples of extreme-left character assassination? Lets talk
about the last DNC.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
Is the sky brown in your world?
Only if it is in yours as well.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Fags? How telling of your bigoted mind.
I know homosexuals who call each other "fag". Why is that ok in that case?
Derogative slang is unnecessary regardless.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
I have excellent news for you. Your proctologist called and said he found
your head.
So much for character assassination being a neocon trait. Let's hear it
from the left! The party of understanding and tolerance... provided you
*agree* with them that is..
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Ed Jay
2006-08-30 02:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Excuse me, but character assassinating someone because they don't agree
with you is a Republican...read neoconservative trait.
You're delusional. When I went to Sonoma State University (one of the most
liberal-biased campuses in the CSU system) I read one of the papers there
where a student attacked then President Reagan for "Talking out both sides
of his mouth, only he forgot his script."
You want more examples of extreme-left character assassination? Lets talk
about the last DNC.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
Is the sky brown in your world?
Only if it is in yours as well.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Fags? How telling of your bigoted mind.
I know homosexuals who call each other "fag". Why is that ok in that case?
Derogative slang is unnecessary regardless.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
I have excellent news for you. Your proctologist called and said he found
your head.
So much for character assassination being a neocon trait. Let's hear it
from the left! The party of understanding and tolerance... provided you
*agree* with them that is..
You've become too boring to continue with. I want to thank you, though.
I've been wondering what kind of people make up the 19% and who are the
people who buy Ann Coulter's trash. Now I know. Thanks for clearing up the
mystery. Now...bye.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
evadnikufesin
2006-08-30 03:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
You've become too boring to continue with. I want to thank you, though.
I've been wondering what kind of people make up the 19% and who are the
people who buy Ann Coulter's trash. Now I know. Thanks for clearing up the
mystery. Now...bye.
Nice... That was actually laughable. But only because it was so sad.

FWIW, I don't read Coulter.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
xModem
2006-08-29 17:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Why do you have to associate politics with tolerance? To discriminate against
any legitimate, contributing segment of society is bigotry, despite one's
political affiliation.
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
And let me help YOU out. Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance."
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Fair enough. You're a raging, uneducated homophobic bigot.
hardriverror
2006-08-29 18:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
That is such bullshit. Homophobia is a spin word created by militant
gay activists to be used for character assassination against anyone
who doesn't agree with their agenda. A typical liberal tactic.
Why do you have to associate politics with tolerance? To discriminate against
any legitimate, contributing segment of society is bigotry, despite one's
political affiliation.
Social engineering is politics. Tell me (actually, don't bother..won't
be around) How do homos contribute to society in a way that's
different from non-homos? How am I discriminating...did I fail to
donate a dollar a day to some homo cause or something?
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
And let me help YOU out. Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance."
How's that help me out? I'm not sure which racial or ethnic group
you're talking about, either. I don't treat homos with hatred...I
think they're funny except when they push their homo beliefs on school
children against the parent's wishes. Plenty of homos hate me for my
beliefs, too...so what?. I'm just happy my whole identity isn't based
on some sexual perversion. I think you're a bigot because you're
you're so intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.
Where's your tolerance towards my beliefs, bigot?
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders, just as they did with fags back
in the 70's.Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
LOL...never heard of that site but there's no confusion here...I do
know the difference between those two perverted groups. Different
perversions. Hope you don't mind the term 'homo'...just figured since
I'm a homophobe, we're talking about homos here.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Fair enough. You're a raging, uneducated homophobic bigot.
There we go...the classic Liberal character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
Ed Jay
2006-08-29 19:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
There we go...the classic Liberal character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
You fail to recognize that nobody needs to call you names to denigrate
you. Your own posts have done wonders in that regard.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
hardriverror
2006-08-29 19:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by hardriverror
There we go...the classic Liberal character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
You fail to recognize that nobody needs to call you names to denigrate
you. Your own posts have done wonders in that regard.
Oh, then maybe the tolerant liberal just couldn't help himself. Some
habits are hard to break.
xModem
2006-08-29 20:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
Social engineering is politics. Tell me (actually, don't bother..won't
be around) How do homos contribute to society in a way that's
different from non-homos?
They don't, and therein lies the salient point. Since their contributions are
the same, they should be treated the same as, and have the exact same rights,
as any other segment of society. Those who share your myopic views don't
think they should.
Post by hardriverror
How am I discriminating...did I fail to
donate a dollar a day to some homo cause or something?
Simply because if you had your way, gays wouldn't be allowed to teach your
kids, join the military, etc. etc.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
And let me help YOU out. Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance."
How's that help me out? I'm not sure which racial or ethnic group
you're talking about, either. I don't treat homos with hatred...
I think they're funny
Why are gays funny?
Post by hardriverror
except when they push their homo beliefs on school
children against the parent's wishes.
What's this "push their homo beliefs on school children." nonsense?
If you're that worried about school kids, keep them away from church. There's
a better chance they're going to get molested by Father O'Reilly than by their
gay math teacher.
Post by hardriverror
Plenty of homos hate me for my
beliefs, too...so what?. I'm just happy my whole identity isn't based
on some sexual perversion. I think you're a bigot because you're
you're so intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.
Where's your tolerance towards my beliefs, bigot?
If you're calling ME a bigot because I'm intolerant of people with backwards
views like yourself, I'm honored. I'm also bigoted towards the KKK,
skinheads...
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders,
Have anything to substantiate that claim?
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
just as they did with fags back in the 70's.
Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
LOL...never heard of that site but there's no confusion here...I do
know the difference between those two perverted groups.
Different perversions. Hope you don't mind the term 'homo'...just figured since
I'm a homophobe, we're talking about homos here.
Tell me, what's the difference in calling one person a fag, and calling
someone else a nigger? Aren't they both hateful terms?
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Fair enough. You're a raging, uneducated homophobic bigot.
There we go...the classic Liberal
You say "liberal" as if it were a bad thing.

Here's what my Webster's says for liberal:
lib-er-al (lib'uhr uhl, lib'ruhl) adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating
measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual
freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than
aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.;
open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a
rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
11. Obs. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
n.
12. a person of liberal principles or views.
13. (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal Party
in Great Britain.

Yep, you pegged me. I'm a liberal.
Post by hardriverror
character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
You're the one who jumped into this thread with "That is such bullshit.
Homophobia is a spin word created by militant gay activists..." The foaming
mouth can be found in your mirror.

As for character assassination - what do you call people who show up at the
same funerals Reverend Phelps is picketing with his "God Hates Fags" signs,
and call him a hateful bastard and a false Christian? Character assassins?
Bwahaha.
hardriverror
2006-08-29 21:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
They don't, and therein lies the salient point. Since their contributions are
the same, they should be treated the same as, and have the exact same rights,
as any other segment of society. Those who share your myopic views don't
think they should.
Another typical bullshit argument...they have the same rights as any
other people.
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
How am I discriminating...did I fail to
donate a dollar a day to some homo cause or something?
Simply because if you had your way, gays wouldn't be allowed to teach your
kids, join the military, etc. etc.
Another old one-liner out of your liberal handbook...teaching and
forcing your beliefs on children are two different things. I don't
care if a gay teaches my kid math.
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
And let me help YOU out. Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance."
How's that help me out? I'm not sure which racial or ethnic group
you're talking about, either. I don't treat homos with hatred...
I think they're funny
Why are gays funny?
Well, thinking they deserve special rights as if they belong to a
racial or ethnic group is funny. You never did mention which group it
was they belonged to.
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
except when they push their homo beliefs on school
children against the parent's wishes.
What's this "push their homo beliefs on school children." nonsense?
If you're that worried about school kids, keep them away from church. There's
a better chance they're going to get molested by Father O'Reilly than by their
gay math teacher.
I didn't say anything about them being molested...you must think that
way for a reason.
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Plenty of homos hate me for my
beliefs, too...so what?. I'm just happy my whole identity isn't based
on some sexual perversion. I think you're a bigot because you're
you're so intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.
Where's your tolerance towards my beliefs, bigot?
If you're calling ME a bigot because I'm intolerant of people with backwards
views like yourself, I'm honored. I'm also bigoted towards the KKK,
skinheads...
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders,
Have anything to substantiate that claim?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926810/posts
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
just as they did with fags back in the 70's.
Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
LOL...never heard of that site but there's no confusion here...I do
know the difference between those two perverted groups.
Different perversions. Hope you don't mind the term 'homo'...just figured since
I'm a homophobe, we're talking about homos here.
Tell me, what's the difference in calling one person a fag, and calling
someone else a nigger? Aren't they both hateful terms?
You're gonna equate a sexual preference slur with a racial slur?
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Fair enough. You're a raging, uneducated homophobic bigot.
There we go...the classic Liberal
You say "liberal" as if it were a bad thing.
lib-er-al (lib'uhr uhl, lib'ruhl) adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating
measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual
freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than
aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.;
open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a
rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
11. Obs. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
n.
12. a person of liberal principles or views.
13. (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal Party
in Great Britain.
Yep, you pegged me. I'm a liberal.
I wouldn't be too proud of that. Reform? Reform what?
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
You're the one who jumped into this thread with "That is such bullshit.
Homophobia is a spin word created by militant gay activists..." The foaming
mouth can be found in your mirror.
As for character assassination - what do you call people who show up at the
same funerals Reverend Phelps is picketing with his "God Hates Fags" signs,
and call him a hateful bastard and a false Christian? Character assassins?
Bwahaha.
No, I would probably say they were right. Figure that one out.

Here's breaking news...the Nazi Gov. of California yesterday signed a
bill to cut all funding from anyone who refuses to condone gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals. FORCING churches to go against
thousands of years of tradition and everything they believe
in...FORCING Christian schools to accept their sick behavior.
Another perfect example of these freaks shoving their beliefs down
people's throats. Forcing a Church to condone their behavior? WTF kind
of twisted logic is that? What happened to religious freedom? Where's
the 'tolerance'? I don't remember the word 'force' being in the
definition of tolerance. That's why you so-called tolerant liberal
types can take your tolerance speech and shove it right up your ass
cuz that's where you're talking out of.
You just managed to destroy the First Amendment in
California...congratulations.
Now that you've succeeded in treating a sexual behavior the same as if
it was age, race, or national origin, you can be sure there will be
other deviant behaviors added to the list of people seeking special
rights.
xModem
2006-08-30 00:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
They don't, and therein lies the salient point. Since their contributions are
the same, they should be treated the same as, and have the exact same rights,
as any other segment of society. Those who share your myopic views don't
think they should.
Another typical bullshit argument...they have the same rights as any
other people.
Can they marry? Are they entitled to spousal benefits? In most places, no.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
How am I discriminating...did I fail to
donate a dollar a day to some homo cause or something?
Simply because if you had your way, gays wouldn't be allowed to teach your
kids, join the military, etc. etc.
Another old one-liner out of your liberal handbook...teaching and
forcing your beliefs on children are two different things. I don't
care if a gay teaches my kid math.
You have the abject inability to separate your perceived ideas of my politics
with my core beliefs. Let's see if you can go a whole 10 minutes without
uttering "liberal."
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
And let me help YOU out. Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance."
How's that help me out? I'm not sure which racial or ethnic group
you're talking about, either. I don't treat homos with hatred...
I think they're funny
Why are gays funny?
Well, thinking they deserve special rights as if they belong to a
racial or ethnic group is funny. You never did mention which group it
was they belonged to.
Again, they don't want special rights. Why do you have a problem absorbing
this simple fact? Are you deliberately being obtuse? They simply want the
SAME rights. And that's funny to you?
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
except when they push their homo beliefs on school
children against the parent's wishes.
What's this "push their homo beliefs on school children." nonsense?
If you're that worried about school kids, keep them away from church. There's
a better chance they're going to get molested by Father O'Reilly than by their
gay math teacher.
I didn't say anything about them being molested...you must think that
way for a reason.
Because the uneducated seem to think that homosexuality equates to pedophilia.

Anyhow, your failure to avoid the question (What's with your claim "push their
homo beliefs on school children against their parent's wishes"?) has been duly
noted. My guess is these are the same parents who are appalled that their
little angels are being taught evolution in a science class instead of
theology.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Plenty of homos hate me for my
beliefs, too...so what?. I'm just happy my whole identity isn't based
on some sexual perversion. I think you're a bigot because you're
you're so intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.
Where's your tolerance towards my beliefs, bigot?
If you're calling ME a bigot because I'm intolerant of people with backwards
views like yourself, I'm honored. I'm also bigoted towards the KKK,
skinheads...
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders,
Have anything to substantiate that claim?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926810/posts
Interesting article. I see it's dated mid 2003. Looks like it won't fly, but
it's a moot point. The laws will still stick. Those with a proclivity
towards rape aren't categorically classified as mentally ill. People that rob
banks and shoot hostages aren't categorically classified as mentally ill.
However, these crimes, as well as pedophilia, will remain crimes, IMO.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
just as they did with fags back in the 70's.
Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
LOL...never heard of that site but there's no confusion here...I do
know the difference between those two perverted groups.
Different perversions. Hope you don't mind the term 'homo'...just figured since
I'm a homophobe, we're talking about homos here.
Tell me, what's the difference in calling one person a fag, and calling
someone else a nigger? Aren't they both hateful terms?
You're gonna equate a sexual preference slur with a racial slur?
They're both bigoted comments, and both uttered by ignorant people.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Fair enough. You're a raging, uneducated homophobic bigot.
There we go...the classic Liberal
You say "liberal" as if it were a bad thing.
lib-er-al (lib'uhr uhl, lib'ruhl) adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating
measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual
freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than
aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.;
open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a
rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
11. Obs. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
n.
12. a person of liberal principles or views.
13. (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal Party
in Great Britain.
Yep, you pegged me. I'm a liberal.
I wouldn't be too proud of that. Reform? Reform what?
FFS, go out and buy yourself a dictionary.
Reform:
1. the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory,
etc.: social reform.
2. an instance of this.
3. the amendment of conduct, belief, etc.
4. to change to a better state, form, etc.
5. to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct.
6. to put an end to (abuses, evils, etc.).
7. to subject (petroleum fractions) to a chemical process, as catalytic
cracking, that increases the octane content.
8. to abandon evil conduct or error.

Surely you can see how that applies. We'll see more on that a bit later.

That you wouldn't be proud of reform is no surprise.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
You're the one who jumped into this thread with "That is such bullshit.
Homophobia is a spin word created by militant gay activists..." The foaming
mouth can be found in your mirror.
As for character assassination - what do you call people who show up at the
same funerals Reverend Phelps is picketing with his "God Hates Fags" signs,
and call him a hateful bastard and a false Christian? Character assassins?
Bwahaha.
No, I would probably say they were right. Figure that one out.
Here's breaking news...the Nazi Gov. of California yesterday signed a
bill to cut all funding from anyone who refuses to condone gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals. FORCING churches to go against
thousands of years of tradition and everything they believe
in...
The bible also used to claim that the sun revolved around the earth, and that
slavery was fine and dandy too, but thanks to REFORM, the church no longer
supports these views.
Post by hardriverror
FORCING Christian schools to accept their sick behavior.
Another perfect example of these freaks shoving their beliefs down
people's throats. Forcing a Church to condone their behavior? WTF kind
of twisted logic is that? What happened to religious freedom?
FYI, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, but of course, you
wouldn't understand that.
Post by hardriverror
Where's the 'tolerance'?
((((BLAM!))) Damn, there goes a brand new irony meter.
Post by hardriverror
I don't remember the word 'force' being in the
definition of tolerance. That's why you so-called tolerant liberal
types can take your tolerance speech and shove it right up your ass
cuz that's where you're talking out of.
You just managed to destroy the First Amendment in
California...congratulations.
FWIW, sparky, it was your team, not mine. Ahnold is a (gasp) conservative.
Secondly, I could care less, as I don't live in California. Don't even live
in the US for that matter.

Yes, it's just so tragic to see progress steamroller right over the intolerant
and the rabid fundamentalists.
Post by hardriverror
Now that you've succeeded in treating a sexual behavior the same as if
it was age, race, or national origin, you can be sure there will be
other deviant behaviors added to the list of people seeking special
rights.
<snip>

Oh yeah, "the Nazi Gov. of California". Congratulations on invoking Godwin's
Law. Whoops, you don't have a dictionary;
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups
that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

In light of that, what do you think of the new Agent?
hardriverror
2006-08-30 07:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
They don't, and therein lies the salient point. Since their contributions are
the same, they should be treated the same as, and have the exact same rights,
as any other segment of society. Those who share your myopic views don't
think they should.
Another typical bullshit argument...they have the same rights as any
other people.
Can they marry? Are they entitled to spousal benefits? In most places, no.
Marriage has always been a religious event between a man and a
woman...why would they want to marry except to destroy that?
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
How am I discriminating...did I fail to
donate a dollar a day to some homo cause or something?
Simply because if you had your way, gays wouldn't be allowed to teach your
kids, join the military, etc. etc.
Another old one-liner out of your liberal handbook...teaching and
forcing your beliefs on children are two different things. I don't
care if a gay teaches my kid math.
You have the abject inability to separate your perceived ideas of my politics
with my core beliefs. Let's see if you can go a whole 10 minutes without
uttering "liberal."
How about Socialist?
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Let me help you out. From Wikipedia: "A phobia is a strong, persistent
fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons." Just because
some gay activists created their own new meanings for a word doesn't
make it so.
And let me help YOU out. Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or
treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance."
How's that help me out? I'm not sure which racial or ethnic group
you're talking about, either. I don't treat homos with hatred...
I think they're funny
Why are gays funny?
Well, thinking they deserve special rights as if they belong to a
racial or ethnic group is funny. You never did mention which group it
was they belonged to.
Again, they don't want special rights. Why do you have a problem absorbing
this simple fact? Are you deliberately being obtuse? They simply want the
SAME rights. And that's funny to you?
They want SPECIAL rights based on their sexual behavior...why is it so
hard to get that through your thick skull?
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
except when they push their homo beliefs on school
children against the parent's wishes.
What's this "push their homo beliefs on school children." nonsense?
If you're that worried about school kids, keep them away from church. There's
a better chance they're going to get molested by Father O'Reilly than by their
gay math teacher.
I didn't say anything about them being molested...you must think that
way for a reason.
Because the uneducated seem to think that homosexuality equates to pedophilia.
It's always been part of the radical gay agenda to lower the age of
consent...I don't see any other groups pushing for this.
Post by xModem
Anyhow, your failure to avoid the question (What's with your claim "push their
homo beliefs on school children against their parent's wishes"?) has been duly
noted. My guess is these are the same parents who are appalled that their
little angels are being taught evolution in a science class instead of
theology.
I could give you 100's of examples throughout this country of gay
activists pushing their crap in schools..mandatory in many cases.
Teaching different theories about how we got here is a little
different than teaching kids that sticking your dick in someone's
asshole is just another healthy lifestyle.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Plenty of homos hate me for my
beliefs, too...so what?. I'm just happy my whole identity isn't based
on some sexual perversion. I think you're a bigot because you're
you're so intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.
Where's your tolerance towards my beliefs, bigot?
If you're calling ME a bigot because I'm intolerant of people with backwards
views like yourself, I'm honored. I'm also bigoted towards the KKK,
skinheads...
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders,
Have anything to substantiate that claim?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926810/posts
Interesting article. I see it's dated mid 2003. Looks like it won't fly, but
it's a moot point. The laws will still stick. Those with a proclivity
towards rape aren't categorically classified as mentally ill. People that rob
banks and shoot hostages aren't categorically classified as mentally ill.
However, these crimes, as well as pedophilia, will remain crimes, IMO.
Sodomy was once against the law, too.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
just as they did with fags back in the 70's.
Twenty years from now they'll be asking for their civil
rights and people like you will be right there backing them up.The
rest of us will be called pedophobes.
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
LOL...never heard of that site but there's no confusion here...I do
know the difference between those two perverted groups.
Different perversions. Hope you don't mind the term 'homo'...just figured since
I'm a homophobe, we're talking about homos here.
Tell me, what's the difference in calling one person a fag, and calling
someone else a nigger? Aren't they both hateful terms?
You're gonna equate a sexual preference slur with a racial slur?
They're both bigoted comments, and both uttered by ignorant people.
Depends on the situation and the actions of the person involved. If
you're trying to tell me you've never used a slur against another
person, then you'd be lying.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Sorry, but I won't let a 100yr old American institution wipe out
thousands of years of human knowledge and decide for me what is right
and what is wrong. If people need to slap a label on me for that, so
be it.
Fair enough. You're a raging, uneducated homophobic bigot.
There we go...the classic Liberal
You say "liberal" as if it were a bad thing.
lib-er-al (lib'uhr uhl, lib'ruhl) adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating
measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual
freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than
aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.;
open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a
rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
11. Obs. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
n.
12. a person of liberal principles or views.
13. (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal Party
in Great Britain.
Yep, you pegged me. I'm a liberal.
I wouldn't be too proud of that. Reform? Reform what?
FFS, go out and buy yourself a dictionary.
1. the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory,
etc.: social reform.
2. an instance of this.
3. the amendment of conduct, belief, etc.
4. to change to a better state, form, etc.
5. to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct.
6. to put an end to (abuses, evils, etc.).
7. to subject (petroleum fractions) to a chemical process, as catalytic
cracking, that increases the octane content.
8. to abandon evil conduct or error.
Surely you can see how that applies. We'll see more on that a bit later.
That you wouldn't be proud of reform is no surprise.
Not the kind of reform you want.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by xModem
character assassination right outta
the handbook. Now I'm even 'raging'. LOL I can see the foam coming
out the corners of your mouth as you try to come up with more names to
call me.
You're the one who jumped into this thread with "That is such bullshit.
Homophobia is a spin word created by militant gay activists..." The foaming
mouth can be found in your mirror.
As for character assassination - what do you call people who show up at the
same funerals Reverend Phelps is picketing with his "God Hates Fags" signs,
and call him a hateful bastard and a false Christian? Character assassins?
Bwahaha.
No, I would probably say they were right. Figure that one out.
Here's breaking news...the Nazi Gov. of California yesterday signed a
bill to cut all funding from anyone who refuses to condone gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals. FORCING churches to go against
thousands of years of tradition and everything they believe
in...
The bible also used to claim that the sun revolved around the earth, and that
slavery was fine and dandy too, but thanks to REFORM, the church no longer
supports these views.
Athiests believed the same things...so what? There's a difference
between learning something, and being forced by government to believe
something. It wasn't 'reform'.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
FORCING Christian schools to accept their sick behavior.
Another perfect example of these freaks shoving their beliefs down
people's throats. Forcing a Church to condone their behavior? WTF kind
of twisted logic is that? What happened to religious freedom?
FYI, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, but of course, you
wouldn't understand that.
You seem confused...no one has ever been forced to attend church in
this country. It's the other way around...the church is being forced
to accept gays. You don't even live here, so I don't expect you to
understand God-Given rights as opposed to your civil rights or even
the foundations of our freedoms.
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Where's the 'tolerance'?
((((BLAM!))) Damn, there goes a brand new irony meter.
Post by hardriverror
I don't remember the word 'force' being in the
definition of tolerance. That's why you so-called tolerant liberal
types can take your tolerance speech and shove it right up your ass
cuz that's where you're talking out of.
You just managed to destroy the First Amendment in
California...congratulations.
FWIW, sparky, it was your team, not mine. Ahnold is a (gasp) conservative.
Secondly, I could care less, as I don't live in California. Don't even live
in the US for that matter.
Arnie is about as far as you can get from a conservative...he's more
neocon. There are no conservatives left except maybe Congressman Ron
Paul from Texas. I'm not republican or democrat.
Post by xModem
Yes, it's just so tragic to see progress steamroller right over the intolerant
and the rabid fundamentalists.
See, you socialists only see things one way...that's your way. If the
shoe was on the other foot and the church got a bill passed that
forced all gays to attend services and obey the church, then there
would be a revolution overnight...people would be up in arms, as they
should be. It would be the end of free speech and freedom of religion.
But the same EXACT thing happens, only in reverse, and you socialists
can't see that the same freedoms were just lost. You're completely
blind to that fact and that just amazes me. Either you're blind or you
just want to turn a blind eye and call it progress.
What really gets me is that while gays and liberals alike are all
celebrating this new bill, they're also blind to the fact that THEY
just lost the same rights as the rest of us. Simply amazing..
They're just pawns being used by higher-ups to destroy our
Constitution one step at a time..
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Now that you've succeeded in treating a sexual behavior the same as if
it was age, race, or national origin, you can be sure there will be
other deviant behaviors added to the list of people seeking special
rights.
<snip>
Oh yeah, "the Nazi Gov. of California". Congratulations on invoking Godwin's
Law. Whoops, you don't have a dictionary;
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups
that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
I'll use Communism next time...same difference.
Post by xModem
In light of that, what do you think of the new Agent?
I just use it for text. The image preview is cool...got me checking
out wallpaper groups and such, but for binaries, I still need to be
able to give two servers the same priority without jumping through any
hoops, so I use a different program for that. I'd like Agent to be my
only newsreader again, so I'm hoping for that option soon.
aspasia
2006-08-30 15:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:43:41 -0700, hardriverror <***@privacy.net>
wrote:

[...]
Post by hardriverror
Marriage has always been a religious event between a man and a
woman...why would they want to marry except to destroy that?
"Religious event"? Hardly. The civil ceremony is what counts, at
least in Western cultures. The religious part is icing on the cake,
though it may well be the most meaningful part of the event to
religious people.

In traditional Judaism, marriage is a legal contract -- like many
other transactions in which ancient Israelites engaged. The "ketuba"
-- often a beautiful piece of original artwork created to order for
the couple, but using basic "legal" language -- is the contract,
which spells out the bride's legal rights in case the marriage has
problems.

The marriage is solemnized by the groom giving the bride something of
the value of two "zuzum" in the presence of qualified witnesses.

All the rest is religious but not strictly necessary; it creates a
beautiful, evocative chain connecting Jews to their heritage.

( knew I'd get sucked into this thread eventually!)

Aspasia
xModem
2006-08-30 17:47:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:43:41 -0700, hardriverror <***@privacy.net> wrote:

<Snipped for brevity.>
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Can they marry? Are they entitled to spousal benefits? In most places, no.
Marriage has always been a religious event between a man and a
woman...why would they want to marry except to destroy that?
Religion is optional in marriage, and not at all required.

What are you afraid of? Two people, who love each other and want to marry,
regardless of their gender, affects MY marriage not one iota. I say more
power to 'em. Matter of fact, I'd rather have gay couples living beside me,
than some of the influential religious leaders, like Robertson or Falwell.

I suppose this is where you'd throw out the, "well, next thing, they'll be
allowing people to marry their goats" line.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
You have the abject inability to separate your perceived ideas of my politics
with my core beliefs. Let's see if you can go a whole 10 minutes without
uttering "liberal."
How about Socialist?
Sure, if it floats your boat. Not ashamed of that tag either.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Again, they don't want special rights. Why do you have a problem absorbing
this simple fact? Are you deliberately being obtuse? They simply want the
SAME rights. And that's funny to you?
They want SPECIAL rights based on their sexual behavior...why is it so
hard to get that through your thick skull?
You keep uttering this nonsense, but for the 3rd time, failed to claim what
these "special" rights are.
Post by hardriverror
It's always been part of the radical gay agenda to lower the age of
consent...I don't see any other groups pushing for this.
Baloney. Some pedophiles are pushing for this, but again, not the gay
community. Again you've demonstrated the inability to distinguish between
homosexuality and pedophilia.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Anyhow, your failure to avoid the question (What's with your claim "push their
homo beliefs on school children against their parent's wishes"?) has been duly
noted. My guess is these are the same parents who are appalled that their
little angels are being taught evolution in a science class instead of
theology.
I could give you 100's of examples throughout this country of gay
activists pushing their crap in schools..mandatory in many cases.
Teaching different theories about how we got here is a little
different than teaching kids that sticking your dick in someone's
asshole is just another healthy lifestyle.
So that's a lot different than you sticking your dick in your wife's asshole,
in the privacy of your own home? You wouldn't tell a classroom full of kids
that that's OK either.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Plenty of homos hate me for my
beliefs, too...so what?. I'm just happy my whole identity isn't based
on some sexual perversion. I think you're a bigot because you're
you're so intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.
Where's your tolerance towards my beliefs, bigot?
If you're calling ME a bigot because I'm intolerant of people with backwards
views like yourself, I'm honored. I'm also bigoted towards the KKK,
skinheads...
Post by hardriverror
Post by hardriverror
The psychiatric associations are now talking about removing pedophiles
from their list of mental disorders,
Have anything to substantiate that claim?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926810/posts
Interesting article. I see it's dated mid 2003. Looks like it won't fly, but
it's a moot point. The laws will still stick. Those with a proclivity
towards rape aren't categorically classified as mentally ill. People that rob
banks and shoot hostages aren't categorically classified as mentally ill.
However, these crimes, as well as pedophilia, will remain crimes, IMO.
Sodomy was once against the law, too.
Yep, engaging in oral or anal sex in the confines of your own bedroom could
still get you thrown in jail in some states. Stupid law.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
You're gonna equate a sexual preference slur with a racial slur?
They're both bigoted comments, and both uttered by ignorant people.
Depends on the situation and the actions of the person involved. If
you're trying to tell me you've never used a slur against another
person, then you'd be lying.
In jest, sure, but not to deliberately hurt anyone. Just as I wouldn't dream
of calling a black person a nigger, I wouldn't call a gay person a fag.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
The bible also used to claim that the sun revolved around the earth, and that
slavery was fine and dandy too, but thanks to REFORM, the church no longer
supports these views.
Athiests believed the same things...so what? There's a difference
between learning something, and being forced by government to believe
something. It wasn't 'reform'.
Back when the church heavily influenced the government, you were punished, and
in some cases executed as a heretic, if you uttered views not consistent with
the bible.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
FORCING Christian schools to accept their sick behavior.
Another perfect example of these freaks shoving their beliefs down
people's throats. Forcing a Church to condone their behavior? WTF kind
of twisted logic is that? What happened to religious freedom?
FYI, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, but of course, you
wouldn't understand that.
You seem confused...no one has ever been forced to attend church in
this country. It's the other way around...the church is being forced
to accept gays. You don't even live here, so I don't expect you to
understand God-Given rights as opposed to your civil rights or even
the foundations of our freedoms.
People who have no religious beliefs, have been forced to pray, or swear oaths
on a bible they don't believe in. They shouldn't have to. Freedom of
religion also includes ALL religions. Would you want your kid to have to bow
down to Mecca 5 times a day, because there's a Muslim kid in his class? Of
course not.

As for God given rights, thankfully, a lot of those are no longer in effect,
like the God given right to own slaves, or the right for married men to keep
concubines, the right to have your wife executed if you find she wasn't a
virgin. I can give you bible chapter and verse, if you're interested.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Yes, it's just so tragic to see progress steamroller right over the intolerant
and the rabid fundamentalists.
See, you socialists only see things one way...that's your way. If the
shoe was on the other foot and the church got a bill passed that
forced all gays to attend services and obey the church, then there
would be a revolution overnight... >people would be up in arms, as they
should be.
Thankfully, there's the separation of church and state, despite what idiots
like your Katherine Harris seem to think. Fortunately, most segments of
Christianity have evolved past taking the bible as literally inerrant. It's
been tough sledding, but we've grown beyond the misogyny, racism, and
homophobia, for the most part, that is rife in the bible. We don't stone
unruly sons, or execute those who work on the sabbath.
Post by hardriverror
It would be the end of free speech and freedom of religion.
But the same EXACT thing happens, only in reverse, and you socialists
can't see that the same freedoms were just lost. You're completely
blind to that fact and that just amazes me. Either you're blind or you
just want to turn a blind eye and call it progress.
What really gets me is that while gays and liberals alike are all
celebrating this new bill, they're also blind to the fact that THEY
just lost the same rights as the rest of us. Simply amazing..
They're just pawns being used by higher-ups to destroy our
Constitution one step at a time..
Again, what rights are lost?
And BTW, religious rights don't trump human rights. This isn't the Dark Ages.
Post by hardriverror
Post by xModem
Post by hardriverror
Now that you've succeeded in treating a sexual behavior the same as if
it was age, race, or national origin, you can be sure there will be
other deviant behaviors added to the list of people seeking special
rights.
<snip>
Oh yeah, "the Nazi Gov. of California". Congratulations on invoking Godwin's
Law. Whoops, you don't have a dictionary;
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups
that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
I'll use Communism next time...same difference.
Post by xModem
In light of that, what do you think of the new Agent?
I just use it for text. The image preview is cool...got me checking
out wallpaper groups and such, but for binaries, I still need to be
able to give two servers the same priority without jumping through any
hoops, so I use a different program for that. I'd like Agent to be my
only newsreader again, so I'm hoping for that option soon.
Have to say it's been interesting talking with you. Unlike evadnikufesin, you
seem to at least have a functioning brain.
evadnikufesin
2006-08-31 01:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by hardriverror
They want SPECIAL rights based on their sexual behavior...why is it so
hard to get that through your thick skull?
Actually what they want is minority protection that's the same as those
"protections" and "rights" if you were non-white.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
evadnikufesin
2006-08-30 01:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
Is that really a site? And if so, why does someone from the party of
tolerance know about it?
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
xModem
2006-08-30 19:05:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:39:14 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
Is that really a site?
You're kidding right? Are you really that mind-numbingly stupid?
Post by evadnikufesin
And if so, why does someone from the party of
tolerance know about it?
Yep, you are that mind-numbingly stupid.
Unlike you, I watch the news. The church and reverend in question have been
on countless times.
evadnikufesin
2006-08-31 01:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:39:14 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
Is that really a site?
You're kidding right? Are you really that mind-numbingly stupid?
Post by evadnikufesin
And if so, why does someone from the party of
tolerance know about it?
Yep, you are that mind-numbingly stupid.
Unlike you, I watch the news. The church and reverend in question have been
on countless times.
Why would I know (or care to know) about a hate site? I mean, that
"Reverend" sure as fuck doesn't represent MY views on faith or God.

Personally I think you like to keep that sort of stuff handy to fuel your
hatred of anything non-socialist/non-left.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
xModem
2006-08-31 11:56:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:50:27 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:39:14 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
Typical ignorant homophobe rant, confusing pedophilia with homosexuality.
I'll bet you've got www.godhatesfags.com bookmarked.
Is that really a site?
You're kidding right? Are you really that mind-numbingly stupid?
Post by evadnikufesin
And if so, why does someone from the party of
tolerance know about it?
Yep, you are that mind-numbingly stupid.
Unlike you, I watch the news. The church and reverend in question have been
on countless times.
Why would I know (or care to know) about a hate site? I mean, that
"Reverend" sure as fuck doesn't represent MY views on faith or God.
Probably for the same reason you'd want to know about anything that's in the
news - to expand your myopic view of the world and the country you live in.
Post by evadnikufesin
Personally I think you like to keep that sort of stuff handy to fuel your
hatred of anything non-socialist/non-left.
And yet you show the world *your* political hatred with an infantile,
inflammatory sig, in a non-political newsgroup.

Hypocrite...
evadnikufesin
2006-08-30 01:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by xModem
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:56:26 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:56 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by jo
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
:P
Go back to watching Bareback Mountin'.
Congratulations. You can add homophobe to your resume.
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
Blow me, lefty.
Post by xModem
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
Just because some dipshits dump crap into Wikipedia doesn't make it so.
Hell, the dog crap woman is in Wikipedia, for godsakes...
Post by xModem
And before you pull out the "Yeah, well, you must be gay" response, my wife
will attest to my 30 years of unwavering heterosexuality.
The thought never crossed my mind. Your being a freakin liberal. Yea,
THAT crossed my mind.. but gay? No. Nor do I really care either way.
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
Second.. if you can't poke fun at something that sounds like a southpark
joke, what *can* you poke fun at...??
Bigots such as yourself?
I'm not a bigot. I'm a misanthrope. Thanks for your concern tho.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Ed Jay
2006-08-30 02:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:56:26 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by xModem
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:56 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by jo
Post by evadnikufesin
I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality".
*snigger*
:P
Go back to watching Bareback Mountin'.
Congratulations. You can add homophobe to your resume.
First.. there's no such thing as a homophobe. No one is *afraid* of
homosexuality.
Your ignorance is stunning.
Blow me, lefty.
Post by xModem
"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred or disapproval of
homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is
generally used to assert bigotry.
Just because some dipshits dump crap into Wikipedia doesn't make it so.
Hell, the dog crap woman is in Wikipedia, for godsakes...
Post by xModem
And before you pull out the "Yeah, well, you must be gay" response, my wife
will attest to my 30 years of unwavering heterosexuality.
The thought never crossed my mind. Your being a freakin liberal. Yea,
THAT crossed my mind.. but gay? No. Nor do I really care either way.
Post by xModem
Post by evadnikufesin
Second.. if you can't poke fun at something that sounds like a southpark
joke, what *can* you poke fun at...??
Bigots such as yourself?
I'm not a bigot. I'm a misanthrope. Thanks for your concern tho.
You're a very lucky whatever. You're a misanthrope AND most people
probably also dislike you. :-)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
evadnikufesin
2006-08-30 03:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by evadnikufesin
I'm not a bigot. I'm a misanthrope. Thanks for your concern tho.
You're a very lucky whatever. You're a misanthrope AND most people
probably also dislike you. :-)
I don't care one way or another. I think most people I know like me, but I
don't really concern myself with being "liked". Thanks for your concern.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
aspasia
2006-08-30 07:09:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:57:25 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Post by evadnikufesin
I'm not a bigot. I'm a misanthrope. Thanks for your concern tho.
You're a very lucky whatever. You're a misanthrope AND most people
probably also dislike you. :-)
I don't care one way or another. I think most people I know like me, but I
don't really concern myself with being "liked". Thanks for your concern.
Amazing that nobody has protested this thread and urged "take it to
email". Time to filter...

Aspasia
Paul Hantom
2006-08-28 19:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care? The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Ed Jay
2006-08-28 19:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Paul Hantom
2006-08-28 21:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
Biblical?

If what you say is true then they really are moronic. It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
Ed Jay
2006-08-28 21:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
Biblical?
Quranical? :-)
Post by Paul Hantom
If what you say is true then they really are moronic.
You get no argument from me on this.
Post by Paul Hantom
It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Paul Hantom
2006-08-28 22:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
Biblical?
Quranical? :-)
Post by Paul Hantom
If what you say is true then they really are moronic.
You get no argument from me on this.
Post by Paul Hantom
It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
I think a lot of that is contrived. Contrived in that their governments
suppress protests against most things but allow it for things convenient for
them. Protesters in these countries aren't able to chose their own cause, and
have very limited outlets to vent. There are several countries where protesters
that shout "Death to America" on camera ask the reporters off camera for help to
emigrate to America!

I think the fundamental problem is that people, especially young males, just
like to fight. I think it was Scientific America that had preliminary research
on the "God gene." Something that explains why some of the population finds
religion silly, and some have an innate desire to believe. I think one of the
findings was that about 7% of any population can be convinced to "blow
themselves up" in the interest of their cause/belief. And getting someone to do
this isn't as hard as most would think. It has been done for thousands of
years, it is just that recently technology has made such individuals extremely
dangerous. At one time they were limited to assassination; technology has
allowed them to become mass murderers.
Ed Jay
2006-08-28 23:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
Biblical?
Quranical? :-)
Post by Paul Hantom
If what you say is true then they really are moronic.
You get no argument from me on this.
Post by Paul Hantom
It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
I meant to address this earlier. Is it a fool's errand if one doesn't
recognize or admit one's house is not in order?
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
I think a lot of that is contrived. Contrived in that their governments
suppress protests against most things but allow it for things convenient for
them. Protesters in these countries aren't able to chose their own cause, and
have very limited outlets to vent.
Interesting theory, but doesn't this argument presume that the populace
always wants to protest, especially en masse? Because of the way I live,
and I've eye witnessed how they live, I can see plenty of reasons for them
to protest. I'm not so certain that they see things the same way I do.
Post by Paul Hantom
There are several countries where protesters
that shout "Death to America" on camera ask the reporters off camera for help to
emigrate to America!
lol. I don't doubt it one bit. :-) The founder of the Islamic Jihad
movement was an American living a nice life in the West. He was a devout
Muslim who hated that American morality was a slap in Mohammad's face.
Post by Paul Hantom
I think the fundamental problem is that people, especially young males, just
like to fight. I think it was Scientific America that had preliminary research
on the "God gene." Something that explains why some of the population finds
religion silly, and some have an innate desire to believe. I think one of the
findings was that about 7% of any population can be convinced to "blow
themselves up" in the interest of their cause/belief. And getting someone to do
this isn't as hard as most would think. It has been done for thousands of
years, it is just that recently technology has made such individuals extremely
dangerous. At one time they were limited to assassination; technology has
allowed them to become mass murderers.
Does the above paragraph convey several different philosophies that you've
connected, or is it a good description of what I'll find in an a SciAm
article? Young males like to fight; some of the population have an innate
desire to believe; 7% of any population can be convinced to blow
themselves up in the interest of their cause/belief. Are these
observations linked in the article?

I don't have any idea how the above transforms quantitatively to the total
Muslim population, but if only 0.1% of that population are true-believer,
young males who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, we're
talking about 1.5 million bad guys! Holy and wholly shit!

I have no difficulty accepting that young males like to fight. I wouldn't
argue that war is natural. I'd argue that before those boys want to fight
and die for their cause, that cause has to be articulated to them and
their will to fight has to be incited. We're fighting the boys instead of
their teachers and stimulants, and we're not going to reach resolution
with them with war. Which brings me back to my original assertion that we
should be making friends and not war.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Al Superczynski
2006-08-29 04:39:31 UTC
Permalink
...we should be making friends and not war.
Neville Chamberlain tried that with Germany. Didn't work.
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Paul Hantom
2006-08-29 22:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
Biblical?
Quranical? :-)
Post by Paul Hantom
If what you say is true then they really are moronic.
You get no argument from me on this.
Post by Paul Hantom
It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
I meant to address this earlier. Is it a fool's errand if one doesn't
recognize or admit one's house is not in order?
Yes.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
I think a lot of that is contrived. Contrived in that their governments
suppress protests against most things but allow it for things convenient for
them. Protesters in these countries aren't able to chose their own cause, and
have very limited outlets to vent.
Interesting theory, but doesn't this argument presume that the populace
always wants to protest, especially en masse? Because of the way I live,
and I've eye witnessed how they live, I can see plenty of reasons for them
to protest. I'm not so certain that they see things the same way I do.
Don't a certain percentage of people always want to express themselves? Won't
an oppressed population relish the chance to rail against something?
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
There are several countries where protesters
that shout "Death to America" on camera ask the reporters off camera for help to
emigrate to America!
lol. I don't doubt it one bit. :-) The founder of the Islamic Jihad
movement was an American living a nice life in the West. He was a devout
Muslim who hated that American morality was a slap in Mohammad's face.
Post by Paul Hantom
I think the fundamental problem is that people, especially young males, just
like to fight. I think it was Scientific America that had preliminary research
on the "God gene." Something that explains why some of the population finds
religion silly, and some have an innate desire to believe. I think one of the
findings was that about 7% of any population can be convinced to "blow
themselves up" in the interest of their cause/belief. And getting someone to do
this isn't as hard as most would think. It has been done for thousands of
years, it is just that recently technology has made such individuals extremely
dangerous. At one time they were limited to assassination; technology has
allowed them to become mass murderers.
Does the above paragraph convey several different philosophies that you've
connected, or is it a good description of what I'll find in an a SciAm
article? Young males like to fight; some of the population have an innate
desire to believe; 7% of any population can be convinced to blow
themselves up in the interest of their cause/belief. Are these
observations linked in the article?
Hard to remember now. That people like to fight, especially young people, is a
separate thing. The rest is something that anyone should have tied together
reading articles about the subject at the time. I remember an article or two,
what I quickly find online is just a book review:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AD4E7-6290-1150-902F83414B7F4945
Post by Ed Jay
I don't have any idea how the above transforms quantitatively to the total
Muslim population, but if only 0.1% of that population are true-believer,
young males who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, we're
talking about 1.5 million bad guys! Holy and wholly shit!
I have no difficulty accepting that young males like to fight. I wouldn't
argue that war is natural.
Not war per se; but taking something by force, if you think you can get away
with it is natural. It conveys a survival advantage and nature selected for it.
Post by Ed Jay
I'd argue that before those boys want to fight
and die for their cause, that cause has to be articulated to them and
their will to fight has to be incited.
Of course. The age and nature of the population is just the gunpowder; the
amount and dryness of the tinder, the idea is the match.
Post by Ed Jay
We're fighting the boys instead of
their teachers and stimulants, and we're not going to reach resolution
with them with war. Which brings me back to my original assertion that we
should be making friends and not war.
The problem with the "making friends" approach is that it requires a sincerity
to do so from both sides. Usually the only thing that encourages friendship is
one side possessing a big, powerful stick with strategies and policies that
insure opposing violence is not a rational option.
Ed Jay
2006-08-29 22:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by evadnikufesin
I will agree with you on one issue. I *do* think that part of the reason
Islam has such a huge problem with the west is "that our individual freedom
has resulted in a decay of morality". I think you are *spot on* in this
one. I blame the sewer pipe called Hollywood for that. I think most
Americans are actually pretty moderate "live and let live" people. But the
sewer pipe often glorifies all that is morally bankrupt in Western society.
Why should they care?
The reason "Islam" has such huge problem with the west is
that our individual freedom offers such an attractive alternative. Can't get
people to buy your product when it isn't an attractive proposition, then
eliminate the competition.
Nonsense! The radical Muslims see our individual freedoms as being the
cause of our moral degradation, and our morals, in their view, challenge
their biblical and spiritual laws.
Biblical?
Quranical? :-)
Post by Paul Hantom
If what you say is true then they really are moronic.
You get no argument from me on this.
Post by Paul Hantom
It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
I meant to address this earlier. Is it a fool's errand if one doesn't
recognize or admit one's house is not in order?
Yes.
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
I think a lot of that is contrived. Contrived in that their governments
suppress protests against most things but allow it for things convenient for
them. Protesters in these countries aren't able to chose their own cause, and
have very limited outlets to vent.
Interesting theory, but doesn't this argument presume that the populace
always wants to protest, especially en masse? Because of the way I live,
and I've eye witnessed how they live, I can see plenty of reasons for them
to protest. I'm not so certain that they see things the same way I do.
Don't a certain percentage of people always want to express themselves? Won't
an oppressed population relish the chance to rail against something?
Definitely and possibly.
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Paul Hantom
There are several countries where protesters
that shout "Death to America" on camera ask the reporters off camera for help to
emigrate to America!
lol. I don't doubt it one bit. :-) The founder of the Islamic Jihad
movement was an American living a nice life in the West. He was a devout
Muslim who hated that American morality was a slap in Mohammad's face.
Post by Paul Hantom
I think the fundamental problem is that people, especially young males, just
like to fight. I think it was Scientific America that had preliminary research
on the "God gene." Something that explains why some of the population finds
religion silly, and some have an innate desire to believe. I think one of the
findings was that about 7% of any population can be convinced to "blow
themselves up" in the interest of their cause/belief. And getting someone to do
this isn't as hard as most would think. It has been done for thousands of
years, it is just that recently technology has made such individuals extremely
dangerous. At one time they were limited to assassination; technology has
allowed them to become mass murderers.
Does the above paragraph convey several different philosophies that you've
connected, or is it a good description of what I'll find in an a SciAm
article? Young males like to fight; some of the population have an innate
desire to believe; 7% of any population can be convinced to blow
themselves up in the interest of their cause/belief. Are these
observations linked in the article?
Hard to remember now. That people like to fight, especially young people, is a
separate thing. The rest is something that anyone should have tied together
reading articles about the subject at the time. I remember an article or two,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AD4E7-6290-1150-902F83414B7F4945
Thanks for the interesting read. I bring a couple of the article's point
to your attention:

"spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling
connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be
objectively demonstrated..."

Hamer tries to show that spirituality is hereditary, but...

"Is the God gene real? The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is
what Hamer presents in his book. He and his colleagues are still preparing
to submit their results to a scientific journal...."

It's his untested, un-peer reviewed hypothesis. Nevertheless, whether it's
hereditary or not, there certainly are a lot of people who share the above
characteristics...at least the latter of the two.

What is the source of the cited statistic that 7% of a population are
willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs?
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
I don't have any idea how the above transforms quantitatively to the total
Muslim population, but if only 0.1% of that population are true-believer,
young males who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, we're
talking about 1.5 million bad guys! Holy and wholly shit!
I have no difficulty accepting that young males like to fight. I wouldn't
argue that war is natural.
Not war per se; but taking something by force, if you think you can get away
with it is natural. It conveys a survival advantage and nature selected for it.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I question 'by force.' Whether you're
correct or not...I don't know. But, taking something by force on a grand
scale is war.

If one were to view Earth from a distance, I wonder of we humans would
appear to behave in the same manner as the disease processes we view under
a microscope? Sending spores to other locations seeking out resources we
need or want, and then encroaching on the owners of those locations by
taking those resources by force. I think if we viewed a time-lapse photo
of Earth's population movements over millennia, that's exactly what we'd
see.
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
I'd argue that before those boys want to fight
and die for their cause, that cause has to be articulated to them and
their will to fight has to be incited.
Of course. The age and nature of the population is just the gunpowder; the
amount and dryness of the tinder, the idea is the match.
Post by Ed Jay
We're fighting the boys instead of
their teachers and stimulants, and we're not going to reach resolution
with them with war. Which brings me back to my original assertion that we
should be making friends and not war.
The problem with the "making friends" approach is that it requires a sincerity
to do so from both sides. Usually the only thing that encourages friendship is
one side possessing a big, powerful stick with strategies and policies that
insure opposing violence is not a rational option.
In the instant case, both sides seem to think they're carrying the bigger
stick. In any event, you're correct...no pun intended, but friendship may
be a hard fought battle.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Jim Higgins
2006-08-29 17:44:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:16:36 -0700, Paul Hantom
Post by Paul Hantom
Post by Ed Jay
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
I think a lot of that is contrived.
If you truly believe that then you haven't read the Qur'an.
Post by Paul Hantom
Contrived in that their governments
suppress protests against most things but allow it for things convenient for
them. Protesters in these countries aren't able to chose their own cause, and
have very limited outlets to vent. There are several countries where protesters
that shout "Death to America" on camera ask the reporters off camera for help to
emigrate to America!
If you understand what's going on you will see no inconsistency there.
Post by Paul Hantom
I think the fundamental problem is that people, especially young males, just
like to fight. I think it was Scientific America that had preliminary research
on the "God gene." Something that explains why some of the population finds
religion silly, and some have an innate desire to believe. I think one of the
findings was that about 7% of any population can be convinced to "blow
themselves up" in the interest of their cause/belief. And getting someone to do
this isn't as hard as most would think. It has been done for thousands of
years, it is just that recently technology has made such individuals extremely
dangerous. At one time they were limited to assassination; technology has
allowed them to become mass murderers.
Let's for a moment accept all of that as true. Now explain why it's
only the 7% among Islamic populations that is chafing at the bit to
kill huge numbers of people. Why out of 30-some significant conflicts
going on in the world today is Islam the aggressive driving force
behind all but one or two?
Jim Higgins
2006-08-29 17:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Good question. I haven't got the answer. But, we do know that they're
extremely violent when we do something they find blasphemous, e.g.,
cartoons denigrating they're prophet.
It isn't just denigrating images that present a problem; ANY images
depicting Allah or the prophet present a problem for all but one small
splinter sect of Islam.
Jim Higgins
2006-08-29 17:38:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:35:23 -0700, Paul Hantom
Post by Paul Hantom
If what you say is true then they really are moronic. It is a fool's errand to
spend your time getting your neighbouor's house in order when yours is not. If
what we do has no affect on them, why would they care?
You need to read the Qur'an. The reasons are there in abundence. The
thought processes expressed in the Qur'an are probably so foreign to
you that you won't accept that such evil exists and calls itself a
religion until you read the word for yourself.

It all boils down to the Prophet Muhammad bringing the word of Allah
to his people and that word is that the goal of Islam is to dominate
the world and convert everyone to Islam... or else subjugate them in
an intolerable 2nd class status and collect a regular tax from them...
or else kill them. They don't place much emphasis on taxing and
subjugating unless it is to the benefit of Islam to do so on a case by
case basis, and few indicate any willingness to convert, so mostly the
goal is killing.
Marc Wilson
2006-08-30 12:07:57 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (evadnikufesin) wrote in
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Ed Jay
Hasn't 9/11, Iraq, etc.,
etc., taught you anything?
That they are hellbent more than ever to "convert us or kill us". Do you
realize that even in the UAE -what some consider the most 'liberal' areas
of the muslim world- that trying to recruit muslims or convert them to
christianity is punishable by death (or at least deportation from the UAE)?
That all of the arab worlds constitutions have no separation of church and
state?
I wouldn't be averse to a worldwide ban on prosetelysing, as they have (or
had, I'm out of date) in Nepal. It is/was a capital crime to try to
convert anyone to *any* religion. Good thing too.

We have enough problems in the world without arguments over who has the
best imaginary friend.
--
Marc

There's nothing like good food, good wine, and a bad girl.
(fortune cookie)
D***@ix.netcom.com
2006-08-28 23:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Ed Jay <***@aes-intl.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Ed Jay
I believe that appealing to the Islamic religious leaders and Islamic
population-at-large through peaceful, i.e., diplomatic means, is far more
appropriate than the path the US has elected to take. I am absolutely
convinced that trying to push our form of democracy and individual
freedoms down their throat at the end of a gun barrel the way the
Neoconservatives believe is the opposite of what we should be doing.
We are confronted with a people who want to kill us because their
religion tells them that they must kill or subdue all who do not
submit to their religion. Our most obvious options are to either
allow them to kill or subdue us or to kill them. We seem to have
chosen to try to reduce their effectiveness against us by undermining
their base of power (Islamic government). I doubt that this will
work, but If you think negotiation and diplomacy could solve this
problem, you are incredibly naive and don't understand the nature of
Islam (You are hardly alone in that. Fortunately, many so-called
Muslims don't even seem to understand it).
Post by Ed Jay
We are constantly told that Muslims hate us "because of our freedom."
That's only partially correct. The Muslim radicals hate us because they
believe that our individual freedom has resulted in a decay of morality,
and the "new" morality flies in the face of what they were taught. Our
behavior is against their [most fervent] religious beliefs. They believe
that the only way to resolve the problem is to wipe us off the planet.
You're partially correct. But they hate us because we have not
submitted to Islam. It's really as simple as that.

Learn about Islam:
www.faithfreedom.org
www.prophetofdoom.net
www.thereligionofpeace.com

You need to read the Hadith collections of the Sunnah in order to
understand Islam. The Qur'an tells you virtually nothing about the
life of Muhammad (who is presented as the perfect example for Muslims
to follow), and it doesn't even include the five pillars of Islam.
The Qur'an lacks context and chronology (the Sunnah provides that) and
makes little sense by itself (although there's still plenty of hatred
in it).
Jim Higgins
2006-08-29 17:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotX
[snip]
Post by Ed Jay
I believe that appealing to the Islamic religious leaders and Islamic
population-at-large through peaceful, i.e., diplomatic means, is far more
appropriate than the path the US has elected to take. I am absolutely
convinced that trying to push our form of democracy and individual
freedoms down their throat at the end of a gun barrel the way the
Neoconservatives believe is the opposite of what we should be doing.
We are confronted with a people who want to kill us because their
religion tells them that they must kill or subdue all who do not
submit to their religion. Our most obvious options are to either
allow them to kill or subdue us or to kill them. We seem to have
chosen to try to reduce their effectiveness against us by undermining
their base of power (Islamic government). I doubt that this will
work, but If you think negotiation and diplomacy could solve this
problem, you are incredibly naive and don't understand the nature of
Islam (You are hardly alone in that. Fortunately, many so-called
Muslims don't even seem to understand it).
Post by Ed Jay
We are constantly told that Muslims hate us "because of our freedom."
That's only partially correct. The Muslim radicals hate us because they
believe that our individual freedom has resulted in a decay of morality,
and the "new" morality flies in the face of what they were taught. Our
behavior is against their [most fervent] religious beliefs. They believe
that the only way to resolve the problem is to wipe us off the planet.
You're partially correct. But they hate us because we have not
submitted to Islam. It's really as simple as that.
www.faithfreedom.org
www.prophetofdoom.net
www.thereligionofpeace.com
You need to read the Hadith collections of the Sunnah in order to
understand Islam. The Qur'an tells you virtually nothing about the
life of Muhammad (who is presented as the perfect example for Muslims
to follow), and it doesn't even include the five pillars of Islam.
The Qur'an lacks context and chronology (the Sunnah provides that) and
makes little sense by itself (although there's still plenty of hatred
in it).
There's more than enough hatred and direction in the Qur'an to explain
everything that's going on. For the background the documents you
recommend fill in a lot of blanks and are recommended reading.

The Qur'an lacks chronology for several reasons. One is that it is
written in a different style than the Bible. It makes no significant
effort to portray a history. The other is that the books in the
Qur'an are not in the order they were written. They are simply in
order by their size.
Marc Wilson
2006-08-30 12:01:47 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Think about something...please...
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
the Islamic Jihad will become the ruling faction throughout the Muslim
world.
Just to introduce the odd stray fact into this overheated discussion:

"Jihad" has been wrongly translated as "holy war"- the meaning is nearer to
"spiritual struggle". Some of the extremists have taken the same meaning
from it as the western press, but it's not the true sense.
Post by Ed Jay
That would include all of the oil producer nations. I'm sure this
is an easy scenario for you to embrace, since you've already said you
believe most Muslims are Islamofascists. All they'll need to exterminate
their enemies is the weaponry.
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
China will need/want all of the oil coming from the Muslim world. China
sells the weapons the Islamic Jihad is going to want. They don't even need
cash...they can trade weapons for oil.
There are 300 million US citizens.
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
--
Marc

If I'm supposed to live every day like it's my last, I want a
gallon of morphine. - Russ Wallace
Jim Higgins
2006-08-30 13:57:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:01:47 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Think about something...please...
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
the Islamic Jihad will become the ruling faction throughout the Muslim
world.
"Jihad" has been wrongly translated as "holy war"- the meaning is nearer to
"spiritual struggle". Some of the extremists have taken the same meaning
from it as the western press, but it's not the true sense.
When in the course of history did it become a rational act to judge
people by what they say rather than by what they do?

Whether "jihad" means war or struggle is totally irrelevant since it
is perfectly obvious that those engaged in it intend to kill to reach
their goal.

Arabic is a very complex language and words have different meanings
depending on context. In the USA we have the "war on poverty" which
is a struggle to eliminate poverty. Do you think for a second that a
statement from some group in the US waving rifles and calling for "war
against Islam" are simply asking for a sincere effort to work out some
differences?

Bottom line is that this lunacy of trying to water down the clear
intent of Islamic extremists by explaining that "jihad" just means a
strugle and that Islam is a religion of peace flies in the face of
what you can read for yourself in the Qur'an and read in the news
almost daily. It's the willful ignorance of Neville Chamberlain all
over again.
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
That would include all of the oil producer nations. I'm sure this
is an easy scenario for you to embrace, since you've already said you
believe most Muslims are Islamofascists. All they'll need to exterminate
their enemies is the weaponry.
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
China will need/want all of the oil coming from the Muslim world. China
sells the weapons the Islamic Jihad is going to want. They don't even need
cash...they can trade weapons for oil.
There are 300 million US citizens.
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
Right - 1.3 B Chinese, 1.1 B Indians
Ed Jay
2006-08-30 15:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:01:47 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Think about something...please...
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
the Islamic Jihad will become the ruling faction throughout the Muslim
world.
"Jihad" has been wrongly translated as "holy war"- the meaning is nearer to
"spiritual struggle". Some of the extremists have taken the same meaning
from it as the western press, but it's not the true sense.
When in the course of history did it become a rational act to judge
people by what they say rather than by what they do?
Whether "jihad" means war or struggle is totally irrelevant since it
is perfectly obvious that those engaged in it intend to kill to reach
their goal.
Arabic is a very complex language and words have different meanings
depending on context. In the USA we have the "war on poverty" which
is a struggle to eliminate poverty. Do you think for a second that a
statement from some group in the US waving rifles and calling for "war
against Islam" are simply asking for a sincere effort to work out some
differences?
Bottom line is that this lunacy of trying to water down the clear
intent of Islamic extremists by explaining that "jihad" just means a
strugle and that Islam is a religion of peace flies in the face of
what you can read for yourself in the Qur'an and read in the news
almost daily. It's the willful ignorance of Neville Chamberlain all
over again.
I don't know of any efforts to deal directly with the extremists as you
portray.
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
That would include all of the oil producer nations. I'm sure this
is an easy scenario for you to embrace, since you've already said you
believe most Muslims are Islamofascists. All they'll need to exterminate
their enemies is the weaponry.
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
China will need/want all of the oil coming from the Muslim world. China
sells the weapons the Islamic Jihad is going to want. They don't even need
cash...they can trade weapons for oil.
There are 300 million US citizens.
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
Right - 1.3 B Chinese, 1.1 B Indians
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Marc Wilson
2006-09-01 01:42:00 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Jim Higgins) wrote in
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
the Islamic Jihad will become the ruling faction throughout the Muslim
world.
"Jihad" has been wrongly translated as "holy war"- the meaning is nearer to
"spiritual struggle". Some of the extremists have taken the same meaning
from it as the western press, but it's not the true sense.
When in the course of history did it become a rational act to judge
people by what they say rather than by what they do?
Whether "jihad" means war or struggle is totally irrelevant since it
is perfectly obvious that those engaged in it intend to kill to reach
their goal.
Arabic is a very complex language and words have different meanings
depending on context. In the USA we have the "war on poverty" which
is a struggle to eliminate poverty. Do you think for a second that a
statement from some group in the US waving rifles and calling for "war
against Islam" are simply asking for a sincere effort to work out some
differences?
Bottom line is that this lunacy of trying to water down the clear
intent of Islamic extremists by explaining that "jihad" just means a
strugle and that Islam is a religion of peace flies in the face of
what you can read for yourself in the Qur'an and read in the news
almost daily. It's the willful ignorance of Neville Chamberlain all
over again.
You miss my point. It's the Muslims calling for "holy war" who are
misusing the term- aided and abetted by the Western press.
--
Marc

I love the way Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou. ( Paul Tomblin, ASR)
Jim Higgins
2006-09-01 14:58:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:42:00 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Jim Higgins
Bottom line is that this lunacy of trying to water down the clear
intent of Islamic extremists by explaining that "jihad" just means a
strugle and that Islam is a religion of peace flies in the face of
what you can read for yourself in the Qur'an and read in the news
almost daily. It's the willful ignorance of Neville Chamberlain all
over again.
You miss my point. It's the Muslims calling for "holy war" who are
misusing the term- aided and abetted by the Western press.
Yep, I missed your point... because you're applying Western thinking
and Western logic to a culture that doesn't think that way. You're
picking one minor definition of jihad after skipping over the major
one. The one meaning simple "struggle" is not the definition of the
word used by Islamo-fascist jihadists. It's NOT that they've
perverted the meaning; it's that there are several meanings and they
aren't using the one you want to claim (incorrectly) is the primary or
original meaning of the word.

The word jihad does come from an Arabic root word meaning struggle.
The PRIMARY meaning is a struggle exerting MAXIMUM EFFORT. Lest
anyone still not understand, we're not talking about a maximum effort
in the sense of two wrestlers trying to pin each other where in the
end both shake hands and walk away. We're talking about a maximum
effort in the sense of two pit bulls engaged in a "struggle" to the
death. The sooner you understand that the better you understand the
world situation.
Ed Jay
2006-08-30 15:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Think about something...please...
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
the Islamic Jihad will become the ruling faction throughout the Muslim
world.
"Jihad" has been wrongly translated as "holy war"- the meaning is nearer to
"spiritual struggle". Some of the extremists have taken the same meaning
from it as the western press, but it's not the true sense.
True, but "Islamic Jihad" was the name of the movement begun by Kabib.
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
That would include all of the oil producer nations. I'm sure this
is an easy scenario for you to embrace, since you've already said you
believe most Muslims are Islamofascists. All they'll need to exterminate
their enemies is the weaponry.
Some day, in the not too distant future, it's entirely conceivable that
China will need/want all of the oil coming from the Muslim world. China
sells the weapons the Islamic Jihad is going to want. They don't even need
cash...they can trade weapons for oil.
There are 300 million US citizens.
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
I stand corrected. There's 1,306,313,812 Chinese.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Marc Wilson
2006-09-01 01:42:59 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
I stand corrected. There's 1,306,313,812 Chinese.
1,306,313,927

(the thread that never ends.....)
--
Marc

"Oh bother", said the Borg, "we've assimilated Winnie-the-Pooh!"
- NancyButton
xModem
2006-09-01 11:25:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:42:59 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
I stand corrected. There's 1,306,313,812 Chinese.
1,306,313,927
(the thread that never ends.....)
In real time =8-)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27812CAD
or
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/country.php?FILE=CH&NAME=China%3C%2Foption%3E
Marc Wilson
2006-09-01 13:59:18 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (xModem) wrote in
Post by xModem
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:42:59 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
I stand corrected. There's 1,306,313,812 Chinese.
1,306,313,927
(the thread that never ends.....)
In real time =8-)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27812CAD
or
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/country.php?FILE=CH&NAME=China%3C%2Foption%3E
I dunno how accurate it can be- especially in a huge country where a large
proportion of the population live in remote rural areas. If it's correct
to the nearest 1,000 I'd be surprised.
--
Marc

I suspect that some people's unwillingness to think for themselves is
based on an accurate appraisal of their abilities. (Arthur D. Hlavaty)
xModem
2006-09-01 15:23:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:59:18 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (xModem) wrote in
Post by xModem
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:42:59 +0100, Marc Wilson
Post by Marc Wilson
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ed Jay) wrote in
Post by Ed Jay
Post by Marc Wilson
Post by Ed Jay
There are 3.5 billion Chinese.
Wow! When did the other 2.5 billion arrive? There are about a billion
Chinese, and about the same number of Indians.
I stand corrected. There's 1,306,313,812 Chinese.
1,306,313,927
(the thread that never ends.....)
In real time =8-)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27812CAD
or
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/country.php?FILE=CH&NAME=China%3C%2Foption%3E
I dunno how accurate it can be- especially in a huge country where a large
proportion of the population live in remote rural areas. If it's correct
to the nearest 1,000 I'd be surprised.
Yep. Just threw it in for fun. It's probably not much different than the
website that updates Bill Gates' fortune in real time.

Marc Wilson
2006-08-30 11:55:18 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (evadnikufesin) wrote in
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
Fuck islammofacism. May your 72 virgins all have festering sores in hell.
I thought that was a transcription error. They actually get 72 raisins.

It's not quite the same incentive.
--
Marc

Custom is the plague of wise men and the idol of fools. - Thomas
Fuller
Donald L McDaniel
2006-08-26 23:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
What is your purpose in life? What is the rationale behind our life?
Evidently, the rationale behind YOUR life is destroying all Westerners
who refuse to kiss the ass of your Prophet, who probably smelled like
a pig.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Why do we live in this life? These questions frequently intrigue people
who try to find accurate answers.
People provide different answers to these questions. Some people
believe the purpose of life is to accumulate wealth. But one may
wonder: What is the purpose of life after one has collected colossal
amounts of money? What then? What will the purpose be once money is
gathered? If the purpose of life is to gain money, there will be no
purpose after becoming wealthy. And in fact, here lies the problem of
some disbelievers or misbelievers at some stage of their life, when
collecting money is the target of their life. When they have collected
the money they dreamt of, their life loses its purpose. They suffer
from the panic of nothingness and they live in tension and
restlessness.
Can Wealth Be an Aim?
We often hear of a millionaire committing suicide, sometimes, not the
millionaire himself but his wife, son, or daughter.
So I guess all those "murder bombers" in the Mideast are "unhappy with
their lives", since they are prone to committing what YOU call
"suicide"? So Islam actually causes UNHAPPINESS, rather than
HAPPINESS? This I don't doubt.

Suicide has many causes, sir. It's NOT always "unhappiness because of
having too much money". In fact, such is USUALLY not the case.
Suicide is usually caused by depression, which is certainly not
endemic to the rich, but iS endemic to HUMANITY at large.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
The question that
poses itself is: Can wealth bring happiness to one's life? In most
cases the answer is NO. Is the purpose of collecting wealth a standing
a toy for him is equal to a million dollars. The eighteen-year old
adolescent does not dream of wealth because he is busy with more
important things. The ninety-year old man does not care about money; he
is worried more about his health. This proves that wealth cannot be a
standing purpose in all the stages of the individual's life.
Wealth can do little to bring happiness to a disbeliever, because
he/she is not sure about his fate. A disbeliever does not know the
purpose of life. And if he has a purpose, this purpose is doomed to be
temporary or self destructive.
What is the use of wealth to a disbeliever if he feels scared of the
end and skeptical of everything. A disbeliever may gain a lot of money,
but will surely lose himself.
Worshipping Allah as an Aim
On the contrary, faith in Allah gives the believer the purpose of life
that he needs.
Yeh, MURDERING anyone who refuses to kiss your asses.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
In Islam, the purpose of life is to worship Allah. The
term "Worship" covers all acts of obedience to Allah.
Such as murdering innocent civilians, and murdering and kidnapping
innocent reporters?

Does THAT give you "happiness"?
If it does, you DESERVE what is happening to you in the Middle East.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
The Islamic purpose of life is a standing purpose. The true Muslim
sticks to this purpose throughout all the stages of his life, whether
he is a child, adolescent, adult, or an old man.
Or "Murder bomber", evidently.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Worshipping Allah makes life purposeful and meaningful,
So murdering innocent civilians gives YOU purpose in life? What a
demonic purpose that is!!
Post by a***@yahoo.com
especially
within the framework of Islam. According to Islam this worldly life is
just a short stage of our life. Then there is the other life.
You mean the one where "murder bombers" get 17 virgins?
Post by a***@yahoo.com
The boundary between the first and second life is the death stage, which is
a transitory stage to the second life. The type of life in the second
stage a person deserves depends on his deeds in the first life.
So murdering innocent civilians enables one to "deserve" 17 virgins?
Post by a***@yahoo.com
At the end of the death stage comes the day of judgment. On this day, Allah
rewards or punishes people according to their deeds in the first life.
If that is so, then all those "murder bombers" are bound for Hell, not
Heaven.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
The First Life as an Examination
So, Islam looks at the first life as an examination of man. The death
stage is similar to a rest period after the test, i. e. after the first
life. The Day of Judgment is similar to the day of announcing the
results of the examinees. The second life is the time when each
examinee enjoys or suffers from the outcome of his behavior during the
test period.
In Islam, the line of life is clear, simple, and logical: the first
life, death, the Day of Judgment, and then the second life.
All of this, of course, your "prophet" stole from Judaism and
Christianity, then perverted for his own ends.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
With this clear line of life, the Muslim has a clear purpose in life. The Muslim
knows he is created by Allah. Muslims know they are going to spend some
years in this first life, during which they have to obey God, because
God will question them and hold them responsible for their public or
private deeds, because Allah knows about all the deeds of all people.
The Muslim knows that his deeds in the first life will determine the
type of second life they will live in. The Muslim knows that this first
life is a very short one, one hundred years, more or less, whereas the
second life is an eternal one.
The Eternity of the Second Life
The concept of the eternity of the second life has a tremendous effect
on a Muslims during their first life, because Muslims believe that
their first life determines the shape of their second life. In
addition, this determines the shape of their second life and this
determination will be through the Judgment of Allah, the All just and
Almighty.
So the hell of the "Murder bombers" will last for an eternity? One
can only hope...
Post by a***@yahoo.com
With this belief in the second life and the Day of Judgment, the
Muslim's life becomes purposeful and meaningful. Moreover, the Muslim's
standing purpose is to go to Paradise in the second life.
Yeh, go to "heaven", no matter what it costs everyone else.
But your "heaven" will turn out to be a HELL of the most PAINFUL sort.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
In other words, the Muslim's permanent purpose is to obey Allah, to
submit to Allah, to carry out His orders, and to keep in continues
contact with Him through prayers (five times a day), through fasting
(one month a year), through charity (as often as possible), and through
pilgrimage (once in one's life).
And through murdering innocent civilians, apparently.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
The Need for a Permanent Purpose
Disbelievers have purposes in their lives such as collecting money and
property, indulging in sex, eating, and dancing.
Hmmm. These seem to be the purposes of most Muslims, especially in
the Middle East. Does that mean that Muslims are ACTUALLY
"disbelievers"?
Post by a***@yahoo.com
But all these purposes
are transient and passing ones. All these purposes come and go, go up
and down. Money comes and goes. Health comes and goes. Sexual
activities cannot continue forever. All these lusts for money, food and
sex cannot answer the individual's questions: so what? Then What?
However, Islam saves Muslims from the trouble of asking the question,
because Islam makes it clear, from the very beginning, that the
permanent purpose of the Muslim in this life is to obey Allah in order
to go to Paradise in the second life.
We should know that the only way for our salvation in this life and in
the hereafter is to know our Lord who created us, believe in Him, and
worship Him alone.
Christians and Jews, from whom you stole your concepts (then twisted
around), see this much differently.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
We should also know our Prophet whom Allah had sent to all mankind,
believe in Him and follow Him.
Mohammed the child-molester, who was sent by Shaitan, certainly
wasn't sent to me, nor to any man who has a decent outlook on life.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
We should, know the religion of truth
Isaiah the Prophet tells us to "beware when they call "evil good, and
good evil". The "truth" you refer to is nothing but a big lie.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
which our Lord has commanded us to believe in, and practice it ...
Your "lord" is Shaitan himself.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Those in search of truth
Certainly no truth to be found in Islam.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Who have an open mind and heart,
Having an "open mind and heart" does not mean being "open to evil".
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Islamic Education Foundation
Welcome You.
Objectives: -
To Convey the message of Islam
To Educate Muslims about Islam
To keep in close contact with new Muslims.
Offering Courses and presenting lectures about Islam in several
languages.
Teaching Islam and Arabic.
Teaching new Muslims to receive the Holy Quran.
The Quran is no "holier" than your nearest pornography purveyer.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Helping Non- Muslims embrace Islam and complete the required procedures
Christians certainly need no "help" from the Antichrist.


==

Donald L. McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
==========================================================
Paul Knudsen
2006-08-28 02:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Hey Ahmed, stop trying to blow us up and maybe we'll talk with you.
evadnikufesin
2006-08-28 03:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Knudsen
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Hey Ahmed, stop trying to blow us up and maybe we'll talk with you.
I concur.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Manatee Memories
2006-08-28 09:41:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:03 -0700, in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent,
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Paul Knudsen
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Hey Ahmed, stop trying to blow us up and maybe we'll talk with you.
I concur.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Terrorists = spoiled children with high explosives (and the inability to calmly
& rationally talk about what bothers them)
Erik Vastmasd
2006-08-28 11:45:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:41:04 GMT, Manatee Memories plucked a feather
Post by Manatee Memories
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:03 -0700, in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent,
Post by evadnikufesin
Post by Paul Knudsen
Post by a***@yahoo.com
ISLAM and the AIM of LIFE
Hey Ahmed, stop trying to blow us up and maybe we'll talk with you.
I concur.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Terrorists = spoiled children with high explosives (and the inability to calmly
& rationally talk about what bothers them)
Or perhaps terrorists arm children with high explosives.
--
Erik Vastmasd

[Remove undies and add .au before replying by email]
Paul Knudsen
2006-08-29 08:27:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:03 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
I concur.
Thanks.
Post by evadnikufesin
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
That's a load of crap.
Sam E
2006-08-29 17:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Knudsen
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:03 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
I concur.
Thanks.
Post by evadnikufesin
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
That's a load of crap.
Note that "liberal" and "conservative" (referring to the words, not
the political perversions) describe desirable qualities. One and not
the other is mental disorder.
evadnikufesin
2006-08-30 01:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Knudsen
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:13:03 -0700, evadnikufesin
Post by evadnikufesin
I concur.
Thanks.
You're welcome.
Post by Paul Knudsen
Post by evadnikufesin
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
That's a load of crap.
Yea? Take a look at what liberals just did to Lieberman because of his
stand on Iraq. They turned on him like Vipers. Hillary, fat-boy Moore,
you name it.
--
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...